Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [TIED] Itchy and Scratchy Stops

Expand Messages
  • Piotr Gasiorowski
    ... From: Glen Gordon To: cybalist@egroups.com Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2000 11:48 PM Subject: Re: [TIED] Beekes PIE Consonants & Glottalized Consonants. Glen
    Message 1 of 23 , May 24, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
       
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2000 11:48 PM
      Subject: Re: [TIED] Beekes' PIE Consonants & Glottalized Consonants.


      Glen writes:

      The fortis stops would be derived from the glottalic stops and so the
      arguement for the loss of *p? (and hence the lack of later *p:) still holds.
      Your question is already answered.
       
       
      Is it? Hm, see below.


      In fact, I understand that this change took place well beyond any
      IndoTyrrhenian or Steppe stage. If we are to accept that IE is more closely
      related to Uralic or Altaic, we should also note that ejectives are nowhere
      to be seen in those languages. Nor do we even find ejectives in the more
      remote languages that are associated with IE in the general Nostratic
      Hypothesis such as Sumerian, Elamite or Dravidian.
       
       
       
      But the Kartvelian languages have some of the most typical and best known consonant systems with large ejective inventories.
       
       
      I presume that this is
      because the ejective->fortis shift took place within the Eurasiatic stage c.
      12,000 BCE (I don't think IE existed that far back! :P)
       
       
       
      Now this is what worries me about the theory that the labial gap in the "mediae" series is a consequence of their having ejective ancestors at a more remote stage. According to your chronology several millennia elapsed between the ejective-to-fortis shift and your Middle (not to mention Common) IE. That's surely enough time to patch any gap for which there is no immediate phonetic justification. Unmotivated empty slots don't live long.
       
      If *b (your *p:) was nonexistent or very rare in PIE, then English should have no p (except perhaps in a few words like apple, lip or deep, which have non-Germanic cognates, and of course in the cluster sp). But even apart from recent Latinate borrowings, occurrences of *p were pouring in through loans, onomatopoeia, newly coined words, etc., already in Proto-Germanic times. They even sneaked into the strong verb system (creep, leap, reap, slip, shape, scrape, step, sleep, sweep, all of them strong in Germanic, not to mention obsolete words like OE weorpan 'throw', pleon 'risk', drepan 'strike').
      Or take the long open vowel [a:] in English. Now and then in the history of the language a sound change came along and shifted it away from the open central position, creating an empty slot. Every time this happened, the vacuum was immediately filled by a newly created /a:/ phoneme (e.g. Middle English open-syllable lengthening filled the gap created by the retraction and rounding of Old English /a:/).
       
      In languages which have the kind of stop you describe as "fortis", labials are as common as other points of articulation. Why should a Eurasiatic phonotactic constraint have remained in force thousands of years after the justification for it had disappeared? BTW, there was p galore in Etruscan. Whatever the reason for the (near-)absence of *b in PIE, we can't blame it on Eurasiatic or even Steppe. It must have something to do with PIE phonetics.


      >Could you be more specific about "hard"/"fortis"?

      In comparison to the let-loose phonemes like *t with aspiration and *d with
      voicing, the phoneme *t: was very restricted in both aspiration and voicing.
      Hence this set is "fortis" as opposed to lenis (unrestricted) like *t and
      *d.

      >How did the fortis stops differ articulatorily and acoustically from >plain
      >voiceless ones?

      Aspiration.
       
       
      Thanks, now I see what you mean. The term "fortis" is a bit informal and is used in at least two senses in phonetics. Most often it refers to increased respiratory energy in the production of a consonant; its primary physical correlate is heightened subglottal pressure, often combined with muscular tension in the walls of the vocal tract. Such a "fortis" stop normally has a strong release burst amounting to aspiration. But there is another legal meaning, closer to your usage: some phoneticians use "fortis" to refer to increased articulatory energy, manifesting itself as higher muscular activation level, a more abrupt closure, a stronger burst (usually), but first and foremost as greater duration. If that's what you mean, your diactritic (:) is well chosen, since "fortis" (in this sense) is virtually synonymous with "long" (I mean long, not merely double).
       
      There are quite a few languages (LuGanda, Pattani Malay, the Dagestanian family) which have distinctive long consonant phonemes (including stops) also in word-initial position, so no-one can accuse you of proposing an impossible system. Your scenarios of branch developments look plausible and certainly merit serious discussion; at any rate they don't add new difficulties to those already created by the "glottalic theory".
       
      Your account of *t: > *d is a bit lame, I'm afraid, and not quite accurate on the factual side. For one thing, *d is the most frequent reflex also in those branches which have *dH > *d. Thus, for example, *dH and *d (your *d and *t:) merged in all Celtic groups, Baltic, Slavic and Albanian, and ultimately also in Tocharian (Iranian doesn't count, as it identified the two series in post-Proto-Aryan times, simplifying an Indic-type four-way system; and Anatolian stop values are too insecure to be included). In other words *t: did not become *d just because it was free to do so. It did so even if it was heading for a merger.
       
       
      >And if originally voiceless, how did they become voiced in
      >so many branches?

      Well that's the same question for the glottalic theory except that their
      transition is a little easier without the glottalic quality to have to
      contend with.

      In Germanic for instance:
           *d  -> *d   (no change)
           *t: -> *t   (aspiration becomes optional)
           *t  -> *T   (softening to fricatives)

      ... not a very huge change here.

      Since *d was "lenis" or unrestricted, it could be easily heavily "breathed"
      or murmured as a way in which to dissimilate as much as possible from *t:
      (hence *d -> *dh). Whereas *t: (traditional *d) was very strictly inaspirate
      AND unvoiced to avoid any merger with *d (traditional *dh).

      Once the shift of *d to *dh took place, voicing became optional for *t:
      (hence *t: was free to become a simpler restricted *d). Obviously, we have a
      greater tendency for *t: to become *d in dialects where *d becomes *dh.

           *d  -> *dh  (murmuring becomes the norm)
           *t: -> *d   (voicing occurs as a form of simplification)
           *t  -> *t   (aspiration becomes optional
                        once the contrastive *t: no longer exists)
       
       
      I suppose *dH was murmured (breathy voiced), given its propensity to change into a fricative or an aspirated stop -- probably a sound like Hindi dh but less "aspirated" (with a shorter onset time for modal voice). I hold no strong views on the nature of *d, except that it isn't very likely to have been a plain [d], given its restricted occurrence. I offered its reconstruction as a creaky voiced stop mainly for the sake of discussion, but such a reconstruction has its merits. First, it easily accounts for the attested reflexes. Secondly, it's plausible from the typological point of view. If we view glottal stricture as a phonetic dimension stretching from "very open" to "closed', we get the following spectrum of phonologically relevant phonation types ("slack" and "stiff" are really reducible to variants of "breathy" and "creaky", respectively):
      voiceless >> breathy >> modal >> creaky >> glottal stop
      The three phonation types between the extremes represent various kinds of "voice". Now if a phonological system has three series of stops differing only in phonation (rather than glottal timing, duration, or airstream mechanism) and two of them are voiced, "breathy" and "creaky" contrast more saliently than either possible pair involving "plain" (modal) voiced stops.
       
      Piotr
    • Glen Gordon
      ... Yes. Kartvelian is a Nostratic language but a more remote one. Both Kartvelian and AfroAsiatic retain the ejectives while Eurasiatic converted them to
      Message 2 of 23 , May 25, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        Me writes:
        >In fact, I understand that this change took place well beyond any
        >IndoTyrrhenian or Steppe stage. If we are to accept that IE is more
        > >closely related to Uralic or Altaic, we should also note that >ejectives
        >are nowhere to be seen in those languages. Nor do we even >find ejectives
        >in the more remote languages that are associated with >IE in the general
        >Nostratic Hypothesis such as Sumerian, Elamite or >Dravidian.

        Piotr:
        > But the Kartvelian languages have some of the most typical and best
        > >known consonant systems with large ejective inventories.

        Yes. Kartvelian is a Nostratic language but a more remote one. Both
        Kartvelian and AfroAsiatic retain the ejectives while Eurasiatic converted
        them to fortis stops.

        Me:
        >I presume that this is
        >because the ejective->fortis shift took place within the Eurasiatic >stage
        >c. 12,000 BCE (I don't think IE existed that far back! :P)

        Piotr:
        > Now this is what worries me about the theory that the labial gap in >the
        >"mediae" series is a consequence of their having ejective >ancestors at a
        >more remote stage. According to your chronology several >millennia elapsed
        >between the ejective-to-fortis shift and your Middle >(not to mention
        >Common) IE. That's surely enough time to patch any gap >for which there is
        >no immediate phonetic justification. Unmotivated >empty slots don't live
        >long.

        Not so sure. I know what you're saying but we aren't dealing with a
        garden-variety *p as in Germanic but rather *p: which is something not all
        that common. I think that these are different scenarios.

        The occurence of Germanic *p never derives from an actual IE *b but instead
        the phoneme enters the language through borrowings or new developments like
        *-ml- > *-bl- > *-pl-, etc. So we have the option of borrowings or phonetic
        developments to obtain our much needed *p:.

        In the phonetic development arena, I can think of no opportunity for a *p:
        to accidentally happen in any earlier stages of IE/Steppe/Eurasiatic except
        via a simplification of some consonant cluster. The early typology is
        self-evident when comparing all Eurasiatic languages - only medial consonant
        clusters occur. The phoneme *p:, if existant, would be medial only. How
        might we obtain a medial *p: except perhaps through a very specific
        compounding of a word *CVp to a stop-initial stem. Not much productive
        opportunity here to fill out the gap even if we were to prove this special
        development of *-pC- to *-p:-.

        Perhaps then, we might play around with the possibility of borrowing.
        Unfortunately, I can't think of a language that IE or its ancestors could
        possibly have come across to borrow words with *p:, except for NWC. Can you?
        An NEC-IE contact doesn't seem possible. It's hard enough finding ANY human
        language with *p:, let alone one that could have influenced IE.

        Even so, why should speakers of a *p:-less language expend there energy
        borrowing this phoneme when there were much simpler ("slack-ier") phonemes
        already available like *p and *b?? This is obviously a different scenario
        from Germanic where *p is such a common phoneme in world languages and a
        simple one to pronounce. A more important question is: Would the phoneme *p:
        be so abundant in any neighbouring language to make it likely of its
        adoption into IE as abundantly as *p was with Germanic? I don't think so.

        With only NWC as a possibility, I am hard pressed to find a word with *p:
        let alone one that could have been borrowed into IE...

        However, Bomhard does list Proto-Circassian *p:@y@ "enemy" (a later branch
        of NWC) as a potential loan in his "Indo-European and the Nostratic
        Hypothesis". He believes that this would have been borrowed into early IE,
        becoming *pe:i- "to hurt", directly from the NWC stage. He states that he
        had no available works on NWC itself to obtain the more ancient
        reconstruction (hence the Circassian items). Regardless, it appears that IE
        had an aversion to adopting *p:.

        >BTW, there was p galore in Etruscan.

        IE *bhi = Etruscan pi. IndoT *b and *p merged to Tyrrhenian *p due to the
        regular collapse of voicing constrast. To boot, Tyrrhenian had no aspiration
        contrast amongst labial stops since *p: didn't exist. This left a simple *p
        as the only labial. Later, Etruscan filled the gap with borrowings with
        /ph/.

        There are native, basic words like /apa/ and /puia/ with /p/ but I don't
        recall anything with /ph/ as part of the basic vocabulary. Well, there is
        /semph/, a Semitic word, and Etruscan doesn't distinguish aspirates from
        non-aspirates in final position anyway. Oh sure, we can find a "phlethora"
        of "ph" words but all of the them seem to be... loanwords. Imagine that.

        >Whatever the reason for the (near-)absence of *b in PIE, we can't >blame it
        >on Eurasiatic or even Steppe. It must have something to do >with PIE
        >phonetics.

        It's all nice to throw away my pretty theory (based on many other pretty
        theories done by other pretty people) but do you have an alternative pretty
        suggestion that works pretty better in regards to pre-IE?

        >But there is another legal meaning, closer to your usage: some
        > >phoneticians use "fortis" to refer to increased articulatory energy,
        > >manifesting itself as higher muscular activation level, a more abrupt
        > >closure, a stronger burst (usually), but first and foremost as greater
        > >duration. If that's what you mean, your diactritic (:) is well chosen,
        > >since "fortis" (in this sense) is virtually synonymous with "long" (I
        > >mean long, not merely double).

        I'm frankly unsure of whether it is the former definition of fortis or the
        latter, and I'm fully conscious of both, so I continue to use the *C:
        notation regardless since it's convenient when dealing with many different
        pre-IE stages all at once.

        > Your account of *t: > *d is a bit lame, I'm afraid,

        Ouch. :( I didn't say that a merger of *t: (*d) and *d (*dh) couldn't happen
        or didn't happen. Oh well, tough crowd.

        > I suppose *dH was murmured (breathy voiced),

        Maybe it depends on which "IndoEuropean" you're talking about. Maybe
        traditional *dh was first a regular voiced *d and traditional *d was
        actually *t: (with longer duration). Once Anatolian split away, the *d
        became murmured to *dh and *t: became voiced as a creaky *d. How 'bout them
        apples? Problem solved.

        Interesting stuff on the glottal stricture phonetic dimension thing.

        - gLeN

        ________________________________________________________________________
        Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
      • Piotr Gasiorowski
        ... From: Glen Gordon To: cybalist@egroups.com Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2000 11:29 PM Subject: Re: [TIED] Itchy and Scratchy Stops ... Glen: Not so sure. I know
        Message 3 of 23 , May 25, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
           
          ----- Original Message -----
          Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2000 11:29 PM
          Subject: Re: [TIED] Itchy and Scratchy Stops


          Me:

          >Now this is what worries me about the theory that the labial gap in >the
          >"mediae" series is a consequence of their having ejective >ancestors at a
          >more remote stage. According to your chronology several >millennia elapsed
          >between the ejective-to-fortis shift and your Middle >(not to mention
          >Common) IE. That's surely enough time to patch any gap >for which there is
          >no immediate phonetic justification. Unmotivated >empty slots don't live
          >long.

          Glen:
           
          Not so sure. I know what you're saying but we aren't dealing with a
          garden-variety *p as in Germanic but rather *p: which is something not all
          that common. I think that these are different scenarios.

          ...

          In the phonetic development arena, I can think of no opportunity for a *p:
          to accidentally happen in any earlier stages of IE/Steppe/Eurasiatic except
          via a simplification of some consonant cluster. The early typology is
          self-evident when comparing all Eurasiatic languages - only medial consonant
          clusters occur. The phoneme *p:, if existant, would be medial only. How
          might we obtain a medial *p: except perhaps through a very specific
          compounding of a word *CVp to a stop-initial stem. Not much productive
          opportunity here to fill out the gap even if we were to prove this special
          development of *-pC- to *-p:-.

          Perhaps then, we might play around with the possibility of borrowing.
          Unfortunately, I can't think of a language that IE or its ancestors could
          possibly have come across to borrow words with *p:, except for NWC. Can you?
          An NEC-IE contact doesn't seem possible. It's hard enough finding ANY human
          language with *p:, let alone one that could have influenced IE.


          A good argument. But why necessarily a phoneme *p:? A geminate *pp in a neighbouring language would do just as well. Phonologically (especially in terms of distribution) a long consonant is different from a geminate, but phonetically they would have been hardly distinguishable in intervocalic position, and -pp- is common enough in some of the potential loanword donors. Sure enough, word initial *p: can't have been added in this way. You've got a point here.
           
           
          It's all nice to throw away my pretty theory (based on many other pretty
          theories done by other pretty people) but do you have an alternative pretty
          suggestion that works pretty better in regards to pre-IE?
           
          I'm not throwing anything away. I'm just looking for its potential weaknesses and asking you to address my doubts. Someone's gotta do it for you. As you can see, I'm willing to concede a point if it's convincingly argued. When I work out an alternative suggestion I'll let you know.
           
          Piotr

        • Piotr Gasiorowski
          ... From: Glen Gordon To: cybalist@egroups.com Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2000 11:29 PM Subject: Re: [TIED] Itchy and Scratchy Stops Glen, I d like to hear your
          Message 4 of 23 , May 26, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
             
            ----- Original Message -----
            Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2000 11:29 PM
            Subject: Re: [TIED] Itchy and Scratchy Stops
             

            Glen,

            I’d like to hear your opinion on the following objection to a ‘glottalic’ explanation of the missing member of the labial series.

            The theory that the gap reflects a missing labial ejective at some remoter historical stage is based on a typological argument first formulated by Martinet in the 1950s, as far as I’m aware, and made widely known by Hopper and Gamkrelidze: ejectives favour posterior places of articulation, then coronal, and finally labial; indeed, there are consonant inventories lacking the labial member of an ejective series. Therefore, if Proto-Nostratic had ejective stops, it was only natural that the labial slot in the series should not have been filled. The gap was then passed on all the way down to PIE, even if Proto-Nostratic ejectives had shifted into ‘tense’ stops in the meantime, as proposed by Starostin, Shevoroshkin and Gordon among others (of course the standard version of the glottalic theory posits ejectives for PIE).

            But lo! when asked to give real-life examples of systems with a missing labial ejective, glottalists mention Haida or Navajo, or unspecified ‘Caucasian languages’ (Gamkrelidze) rather than anything indisputably Nostratic. It must be borne in mind that lacking a labial is NOT a universal property of ejective inventories. In fact, most of those I’ve examined do contain a labial. On closer inspection it turns out that the labial gap Gamkrelidze alludes to can be found in some North Caucasian (that is, non-Nostratic) languages (notwithstanding which, *p’ is reconstructed for Proto-NC). In the Kartvelian languages, claimed to be Nostratic, the ejective inventories are embarrassingly complete.

            Gamkrelidze attaches some importance to the fact that there is a labial gap in the Semitic ‘emphatic series’, often regarded as reflexes of Proto-Afroasiatic ejectives. However, the Semitic emphatics don’t constitute a series parallel to the voiceless and voiced obstruents; they are pharyngealised coronals (and ONLY coronals), with voiceless : voiced distinctions. Their systemic function doesn’t reflect that of Proto-AA ejectives, even if they derive from them. Semitic has uvular and pharyngeal obstruents, which pattern in certain respects with pharyngealised coronals, but that’s because they all share the same postvelar place-of-articulation component, not because they represent a special mode of consonant production. In other words, Gamkrelidze points to a gap in a non-existent series. Incidentally, ejective *p’ is reconstructed for Proto-AA and has distinct reflexes in the African subfamilies of Afroasiatic.

            My question is, is there any ground for claiming that there was indeed a labial gap in the ejective series in Proto-Nostratic?

            Piotr

          • Glen Gordon
            ... Has there been a misunderstanding? Since I follow the same phonological system laid out by Bomhard (save some objections towards unnecessary phonemes like
            Message 5 of 23 , May 26, 2000
            • 0 Attachment
              Piotr:
              > My question is, is there any ground for claiming that there was >indeed
              >a labial gap in the ejective series in Proto-Nostratic?

              Has there been a misunderstanding?

              Since I follow the same phonological system laid out by Bomhard (save some
              objections towards unnecessary phonemes like the palatal series, lateral
              affricate series and fricatives), I'm not one to ask this question without
              agreeing with you completely. Bomhard reconstructs *p? and is something I do
              not object to.

              Do you think I believe that Nostratic had no labial ejective? I _do_ believe
              that there was a labial ejective in Nostratic, passed down to Kartvelian and
              AA.

              >The gap was then passed on all the way down to PIE, even if
              >Proto->Nostratic ejectives had shifted into 'tense' stops in the meantime,
              >as >proposed by Starostin, Shevoroshkin and Gordon among others (of course
              > >the standard version of the glottalic theory posits ejectives for PIE).

              Is there another Gordon I'm not aware of? :) I'm going to clarify: Nostratic
              HAD a labial ejective (c.15,000 BCE). In Eurasiatic, the ejectives became
              tense stops and the resultant *p: was lost at around 12,000 BCE, merging
              with plain voiceless *p. The gap found in IE is not directly from Nostratic
              but rather derives from the state found in _Eurasiatic_, the term I use to
              define the Nostratic subgroup to which Sumerian, ElamoDravidian and Steppe
              belong, void of any originally Greenbergian sense.

              Or have I misunderstood your arguement? I'm feeling sleepy today...

              - gLeN

              ________________________________________________________________________
              Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
            • Piotr Gasiorowski
              ... From: Glen Gordon To: cybalist@egroups.com Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2000 6:20 AM Subject: Re: [TIED] Itchy and Scratchy Stops OK. I m just trying to clarify
              Message 6 of 23 , May 27, 2000
              • 0 Attachment
                 
                ----- Original Message -----
                Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2000 6:20 AM
                Subject: Re: [TIED] Itchy and Scratchy Stops


                 
                OK. I'm just trying to clarify some details, including phonetic and chronological ones. Let me quote what Glen Gordon wrote the other day:
                 
                The fortis stops would be derived from the glottalic stops and so the arguement for the loss of *p? (and hence the lack of later *p:) still holds. Your question is already answered.
                 
                Now a person purporting to be the same Glen Gordon writes:
                 
                Bomhard reconstructs *p? and is something I do not object to [...]. In Eurasiatic, the ejectives became tense stops and the resultant *p: was lost at around 12,000 BCE, merging with plain voiceless *p.
                 
                Do you wonder I feel confused? The misunderstanding seems to be all between the two Gordons. If the absence of *p: isn't explained by the earlier absence of *p', what is it explained by? The typological argument evaporates: languages with "fortis" consonants don't disfavour labials, and why indeed should they? The assumed merger of *p: and *p becomes an ad hoc solution.
                 
                Piotr
                 
                 

                 
                Glen II writes:
                Piotr:
                >   My question is, is there any ground for claiming that there was >indeed
                >a labial gap in the ejective series in Proto-Nostratic?

                Has there been a misunderstanding?

                Since I follow the same phonological system laid out by Bomhard (save some
                objections towards unnecessary phonemes like the palatal series, lateral
                affricate series and fricatives), I'm not one to ask this question without
                agreeing with you completely. Bomhard reconstructs *p? and is something I do
                not object to.

                Do you think I believe that Nostratic had no labial ejective? I _do_ believe
                that there was a labial ejective in Nostratic, passed down to Kartvelian and
                AA.

                >The gap was then passed on all the way down to PIE, even if
                >Proto->Nostratic ejectives had shifted into 'tense' stops in the meantime,
                >as >proposed by Starostin, Shevoroshkin and Gordon among others (of course
                > >the standard version of the glottalic theory posits ejectives for PIE).

                Is there another Gordon I'm not aware of? :) I'm going to clarify: Nostratic
                HAD a labial ejective (c.15,000 BCE). In Eurasiatic, the ejectives became
                tense stops and the resultant *p: was lost at around 12,000 BCE, merging
                with plain voiceless *p. The gap found in IE is not directly from Nostratic
                but rather derives from the state found in _Eurasiatic_, the term I use to
                define the Nostratic subgroup to which Sumerian, ElamoDravidian and Steppe
                belong, void of any originally Greenbergian sense.
              • Glen Gordon
                Hmm, I would speculate that while there is only one Glen, there may be two Piotr s, one that understands and the other that doesn t. Apparently, the former is
                Message 7 of 23 , May 27, 2000
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hmm, I would speculate that while there is only one Glen, there may be two
                  Piotr's, one that understands and the other that doesn't. Apparently, the
                  former is on vacation.

                  After a long and successful perversion of the true meaning behind my
                  statements:
                  > Do you wonder I feel confused?

                  Yes, I do wonder, especially after I was careful to date Nostratic at 15,000
                  BCE and to have said that the _loss_ of the labial ejective is to be dated
                  at around 12,000 BCE within the Eurasiatic subgroup. Didn't I also state
                  that there was possibly some words which show a Sumerian /b/ to Steppe *p
                  (Sumerian tab = IE *tep-), demonstrating perhaps that Sumerian retained the
                  *p? or *p: and implying that the change took place at a later stage of
                  Eurasiatic after Sumerian seperated? If not, you heard it now.

                  Piotr, using my previous quotes against me:
                  > The fortis stops would be derived from the glottalic stops and >so the
                  >arguement for the loss of *p? (and hence the lack of later *p:) >still
                  >holds. Your question is already answered.

                  No, no, no. Nostratic definitely HAD a labial ejective. I never claimed
                  otherwise. At some later stage, the labial took a walk (obviously). The
                  question is when this actually took place and how exactly. I went for an
                  estimate of 12,000 BCE.

                  I thought it should be better that the *p: was lost AFTER the
                  ejective-fortis shift (in late Eurasiatic), rather than the previous idea
                  which was that *p? disappeared before the ejective-fortis shift (but still
                  DEFINITELY NOT lost in Nostratic itself).

                  The reason for this is that Sumerian, as well as all other Eurasiatic
                  languages, do not seem to preserve ejectives (in stark contrast to
                  Kartvelian, NEC and NWC which have had them for millenia and millenia and
                  millenia, preserved nicely in at least some of their daughter languages).

                  Sumerian might have retained this labial stop in some form or another
                  though. One would then start thinking that it was a loss of *p:, rather than
                  a loss of *p? that occured, since Sumerian still lacks ejectives like the
                  rest of Eurasiatic.

                  But then...

                  >If the absence of *p: isn't explained by the earlier absence of *p', >what
                  >is it explained by? The typological argument evaporates: >languages with
                  >"fortis" consonants don't disfavour labials, and why >indeed should they?
                  >The assumed merger of *p: and *p becomes an ad hoc >solution.

                  I see.

                  I have been assimilated. Your arguement has been subsequently adapted into
                  my theory. Thus, Eurasiatic retained the _unchanged_ series of ejectives
                  and, as always, included the Nostratic labial ejective. Sumerian then split
                  at around 12,000 BCE, preserving *p? as later /b/ (due to the eventual
                  merger of ejectives with inaspirate stops). The loss of *p? occured
                  subsequently, followed by the ejective-fortis shift. At this point,
                  Eurasiatic began fragmenting into ElamoDravidian and Steppe, around 11,000
                  or 10,000 BCE.

                  As a result, the suspicious lack of *p: continued on for about six to eight
                  thousand years until the tense stops were finally converted to plain voiced
                  stops within Common IE.

                  Is better?

                  Oh, by the way, before I forget. This leaves some intriguing afterthoughts
                  about Altaic. If I'm right that voiceless stops were generally softened such
                  as *t > Altaic *s (explaining the second person), what of our *p?

                  If *p were softened to an *f or *h as is expected, we would end up with a
                  complete lack of *p since **p: would have filled this gap if only it
                  existed! There must have been a resistance to this change and therefore,
                  while Steppe *t > Altaic *s and Steppe *k (but not *kW) > Altaic *(h), I
                  suspect that Steppe *p remained untouched as Altaic *p.

                  I propose:

                  Steppe > Altaic
                  t k p s (h) -
                  t: k: - t k p
                  d g b d g b

                  Here, we can see that the gap of the labial tense stop was succesfully
                  transfered over to the fricative series. Just a thought.

                  - gLeN



                  ________________________________________________________________________
                  Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
                • Piotr Gasiorowski
                  ... From: Glen Gordon To: cybalist@egroups.com Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2000 1:04 AM Subject: Re: [TIED] Itchy and Scratchy Stops After a long and successful
                  Message 8 of 23 , May 28, 2000
                  • 0 Attachment
                     
                    ----- Original Message -----
                    Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2000 1:04 AM
                    Subject: Re: [TIED] Itchy and Scratchy Stops


                    After a long and successful perversion of the true meaning behind my
                    statements...
                     
                    Glen, I much prefer a true meaning clearly expressed in a statement to one lurking behind a statement.
                     
                    I have been assimilated. Your arguement has been subsequently adapted into
                    my theory. Thus, Eurasiatic retained the _unchanged_ series of ejectives
                    and, as always, included the Nostratic labial ejective. Sumerian then split
                    at around 12,000 BCE, preserving *p? as later /b/ (due to the eventual
                    merger of ejectives with inaspirate stops). The loss of *p? occured
                    subsequently, followed by the ejective-fortis shift. At this point,
                    Eurasiatic began fragmenting into ElamoDravidian and Steppe, around 11,000
                    or 10,000 BCE.

                    As a result, the suspicious lack of *p: continued on for about six to eight
                    thousand years until the tense stops were finally converted to plain voiced
                    stops within Common IE.

                    Is better?
                     
                    It's certainly much better this way, though I still have doubts about the possibility of a gap surviving for so long, especially in word-medial position. Stops like *p: aren't all that unusual. They may arise not only through gemination or assimilation but also through prosodic processes, as e.g. in Balto-Fennic-Saami gradation. Proto-BFS developed long consonants which may even form clusters with their short counterparts in some modern BFS languages, as in Estonian pappp [pap:p] 'pope' or Saami bapppa [bap:pa] 'priest'. In a language with a missing unmarked member of a consonant series there will be a pressure to fill the gap, and a means of filling it will be found more likely sooner than later.
                     
                    Oh, by the way, before I forget. This leaves some intriguing afterthoughts
                    about Altaic. If I'm right that voiceless stops were generally softened such
                    as *t > Altaic *s (explaining the second person), what of our *p?

                    If *p were softened to an *f or *h as is expected, we would end up with a
                    complete lack of *p since **p: would have filled this gap if only it
                    existed! There must have been a resistance to this change and therefore,
                    while Steppe *t > Altaic *s and Steppe *k (but not *kW) > Altaic *(h), I
                    suspect that Steppe *p remained untouched as Altaic *p.

                    I propose:

                         Steppe            >      Altaic
                         t    k    p              s   (h)   -
                         t:   k:   -              t    k    p
                         d    g    b              d    g    b

                    Here, we can see that the gap of the labial tense stop was succesfully
                    transfered over to the fricative series. Just a thought.
                     
                    I'm not an Altaicist (or a Nostraticist, for that matter), but AFAIK Bomhardian Nostratic *t, *t', *d > Proto-Altaic *tH, *t, *d. The lenition of aspirated stop (e.g. *p>f>x>h>zero, with different positional reflexes) took place independently in various branches but not in PA.
                     
                    Piotr
                  • John Croft
                    Piotr wrote ... adapted into ... ejectives ... then split ... eventual ... occured ... point, ... around 11,000 ... Excellent. Lets look now at the cultures
                    Message 9 of 23 , May 29, 2000
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Piotr wrote

                      > I have been assimilated. Your arguement has been subsequently
                      adapted into
                      > my theory. Thus, Eurasiatic retained the _unchanged_ series of
                      ejectives
                      > and, as always, included the Nostratic labial ejective. Sumerian
                      then split
                      > at around 12,000 BCE, preserving *p? as later /b/ (due to the
                      eventual
                      > merger of ejectives with inaspirate stops). The loss of *p?
                      occured
                      > subsequently, followed by the ejective-fortis shift. At this
                      point,
                      > Eurasiatic began fragmenting into ElamoDravidian and Steppe,
                      around 11,000
                      > or 10,000 BCE.

                      Excellent. Lets look now at the cultures that can account for such
                      shifts. If Sumerian split about 12,000 BCE we are talking of a split
                      from the emergent Nostratic out of Africa - Kebaran - which appeared
                      in the Middle East. The period was a moist one, prior to the Younger
                      Dryas. The Arabian peninsula would have been a grassland semi-arid
                      climate. Sumerian could have been the first mesolithic culture to
                      occupy Arabia.

                      The Eurasiatic fragmenting into Elamo-Dravidian and Steppe around
                      11-10,000 is clearly the split between Susanian microlithic and
                      Zarzian culture which occurred at roughly this time.

                      I think we are making progress.

                      As my series of maps show - Zarzian was the dominant culture in the
                      mesolithic period in the area from which obsidian tools were made and
                      manufactured in the middle east. It would appear that the Zarzians
                      were also the first we know of to have domesticated the dog. This
                      would provide cultural and technological reasons for their
                      distribution. The spread of this culture, to the east, to the west
                      and to the north, gives us an excellent means for the further
                      fragmentation of Steppe.

                      Do we have agreement?

                      Regards

                      John
                    • Glen Gordon
                      ... Indeed. In other words, I should avoid any messages like the one above. :) I frankly don t know what you re alluding to but I ve always strived to lay out
                      Message 10 of 23 , May 30, 2000
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Piotr:
                        > Glen, I much prefer a true meaning clearly expressed in a >statement
                        >to one lurking behind a statement.

                        Indeed. In other words, I should avoid any messages like the one above. :) I
                        frankly don't know what you're alluding to but I've always strived to lay
                        out my thoughts clearly for public forum.

                        > It's certainly much better this way, though I still have doubts >about
                        >the possibility of a gap surviving for so long, especially in >word-medial
                        >position.

                        What can I do about it? It's not as if the traditional theory speaks volumes
                        on the lack of **b at all.

                        >In a language with a missing unmarked member of a consonant series >there
                        >will be a pressure to fill the gap, and a means of filling it >will be
                        >found more likely sooner than later.

                        Why are we talking about hypothetical situations that never happened? Along
                        with the fact that there is no initial *b in IE, there is no medial *b
                        either. It would be nice if it did exist, but we have to move on now.

                        There must have been a gap for "n" amount of years between the ejective
                        stage and the fortis stage. How long is too long for filling a gap? Sounds
                        like a glottochronological pseudo-arguement.

                        If you won $100 in bingo, would you be sad that you didn't win $1000? Here's
                        a theory that doesn't require superfluous ejectives in IE itself, it doesn't
                        require that IE is in Anatolia and yet keeps the new solution to the
                        typological and phonological problems that would otherwise be inheirant in
                        the traditionally reconstructed language. It even helps to better relate IE
                        to Uralic and Altaic.

                        I can't imagine Steppe having ejectives unless one wants to do the same
                        thing that has been done for IE, which is to claim that ejectives
                        conveniently evaporated in all languages. (Huh??)

                        Speaking of Altaic...

                        > I'm not an Altaicist (or a Nostraticist, for that matter), but >AFAIK
                        >Bomhardian Nostratic *t, *t', *d > Proto-Altaic *tH, *t, *d. The >lenition
                        >of aspirated stop (e.g. *p>f>x>h>zero, with different >positional reflexes)
                        >took place independently in various branches but >not in PA.

                        Erh, no. AFAIK or AFAITIK (as far as I thought I knew)? Apparently there are
                        two Bomhard's too.

                        I can't call myself an Altaicist either but Bomhard went for the
                        phonological system proposed by Poppe which he illustrates on p.78 in that
                        book of mine that I have read and that I have within my very hands:

                        p t c^ k
                        b d z^ g
                        s
                        m n n' -N-
                        -l- -l'-
                        -r- -r'-
                        y

                        a o u i e e" o" u" i"
                        a: o: u: i: e: e": o": u": i":

                        No aspirate voiceless stops. Sorry. This is the real correpondance he had in
                        mind:

                        Nostratic Altaic
                        *t *t
                        *t? *t-, *-d-
                        *d *d

                        Perhaps you got confused with Illich-Svitych? He was also a Nostraticist
                        before Bomhard but he's currently in the process of being reincarnated at
                        this time and is unavailable for comment. He and the much-alive Starostin
                        have this system:

                        p t c^ k
                        pH tH c^H kH
                        b d z^ g
                        s s^(?)
                        z(?)
                        m n n' -N-
                        -l- -l'-
                        -r- -r'-
                        -w- -y-

                        i e a" u" o" i" u o a

                        What's with the sibilant overkill?

                        Frankly, as much as Russians are cool, I'm not feeling kosher with this
                        system and the fact that Starostin uses it for some of his very farflung
                        reconstructions isn't selling it for me (Check out his website under Altaic
                        and look at the entry for "three", yikes!), unless there are two
                        Starostin's. Between IS and Star., I don't particularly delight in the
                        phonetic plausibility of their reconstructions.

                        Regardless of what system you're using, an *s is an *s. Therefore *s will
                        still correlate with IE *t and with Steppe *t... and Nostratic *t. I expect
                        all voiceless stops (aside from *kW) had softened to fricatives or *h/null
                        in pre-Altaic. The aspiration contrast you mention is something within
                        Altaic itself it would seem.

                        BTW, liquids aren't initial in Altaic and because of this, Bomhard draws a
                        blank in his correspondances in re of Nostratic *l- and *r-.
                        Chuckle, chuckle. What a silly goof he is. The answer's obvious, duh!

                        - gLeN
                        Thoughts never burned anyone's house down.

                        ________________________________________________________________________
                        Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
                      • Piotr Gasiorowski
                        ... From: Glen Gordon To: cybalist@egroups.com Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2000 8:32 PM Subject: Re: [TIED] Itchy and Scratchy Stops Glen writes: Why are we talking
                        Message 11 of 23 , May 30, 2000
                        • 0 Attachment
                           
                          ----- Original Message -----
                          Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2000 8:32 PM
                          Subject: Re: [TIED] Itchy and Scratchy Stops


                          Glen writes:

                          Why are we talking about hypothetical situations that never happened? Along
                          with the fact that there is no initial *b in IE, there is no medial *b
                          either. It would be nice if it did exist, but we have to move on now.
                           
                          Bomhard would perhaps disagree, even about *b-. In an article I've just read he supports a Nostratic etymology for Latin bi:lis 'gall, bile' (< *bistlis [*-st- visible in Celtic] < Nostratic *p'iš-, with Uralic and Dravidian cognates). While such etymologies are a little on the fanciful side, I don't think PIE *-b- was completely absent, though it was definitely very rare (a fact which also calls for an explanation). Could you refresh my memory as regards your proposed etymology for the "apple" word with postulated *-ml- > *-bl-? I think it would be nice to discuss something IE for a change. Then we could consider other examples of *-b- if you don't mind.

                          ...

                          I can't call myself an Altaicist either but Bomhard went for the
                          phonological system proposed by Poppe which he illustrates on p.78 in that
                          book of mine that I have read and that I have within my very hands:

                                           p     t     c^    k
                                           b     d     z^    g
                                                 s
                                           m     n     n'   -N-
                                          -l-         -l'-
                                          -r-         -r'-
                                                       y

                                  a    o    u    i    e    e"   o"   u"   i"
                                  a:   o:   u:   i:   e:   e":  o":  u":  i":

                          No aspirate voiceless stops. Sorry. This is the real correpondance he had in
                          mind:

                                        Nostratic   Altaic
                                          *t          *t
                                          *t?         *t-, *-d-
                                          *d          *d

                          All right, Glen, I'm sure you know your Bomhard better than I do. Nostraticism is a confusing business. For some unfathomable reason Bomhard's ejectives correspond to Illich-Svitych's plain voiceless stops and vice versa. The Moscow School scholars (including Dolgopolsky) follow their founding father contra the evil Americans. Starostin and Shevoroshkin are steering a middle course, being in principle Illich-Svitych's disciples and paying lip-service to his teaching, but embracing a more Bomhardian version of Nostratic consonantism. But perhaps there were two Proto-Nostratic dialects, East (Russian) Nostratic and West (US) Nostratic.
                           
                          BTW, the most recent version of Bomhard's Nostratic I've seen (1999) has eleven columns of stops/affricates in three series (there are five gaps, to be sure, so the actual number of plosive phonemes is 28), and the three series are symbolised *TH, *D, *T'. It seems he regards aspiration as relevant in the voiceless stops. I've no idea if or how it affects his views on Proto-Altaic.
                           
                          As for the Proto-Altaic system, it woud be interesting to know, in the first place, what professional Altaicists think of it. Unfortunately, while there are more or less generally accepted Turkic, Tungusic and Mongolic reconstructions, the phonology of Proto-Altaic depends very much on the idiosyncratic preferences of individual scholars; it also varies according to whether Japanese and Korean are included or not. Poppe specialises in Mongolic languages, so his Altaic may be expected to gravitate in that direction. I've had another cursory glance at a few articles on Proto-Altaic and couldn't find much agreement on anything, including the number of stop series. There is no standard reconstruction, in a word. The first-ever Altaic Etymological Dictionary (by Starostin, Dybo and Mudrak) is to be published soon; the authors do reconstruct a series of aspirated stops.
                          Piotr
                        • Glen Gordon
                          ... Hmm, a desperate reconstruction. Sure it s Bomhard? However, he does show (p?) as the counterpart of Nostratic *p? in this book, making it clear that he
                          Message 12 of 23 , May 30, 2000
                          • 0 Attachment
                            > Bomhard would perhaps disagree, even about *b-. In an article >I've
                            >just read he supports a Nostratic etymology for Latin bi:lis >'gall, bile'
                            >(< *bistlis [*-st- visible in Celtic] < Nostratic *p'is-, >with Uralic and
                            >Dravidian cognates).

                            Hmm, a desperate reconstruction. Sure it's Bomhard? However, he does show
                            "(p?)" as the counterpart of Nostratic *p? in this book, making it clear
                            that he felt unsure of whether traditional *b existed in IE or not.

                            >While such etymologies are a little on the fanciful side, I don't >think
                            >PIE *-b- was completely absent, though it was definitely very >rare (a fact
                            >which also calls for an explanation).

                            I don't understand your reasoning. Whether **-b- (or rather *p*/*p:) is rare
                            or is completely absent is an irrelevant issue. The same need for
                            explanation, as you say, is present regardless. This would mean that even if
                            we were to find the elusive **b, nothing would change until we found an
                            abundance of it. (Not gonna happen...)

                            >Could you refresh my memory as regards your proposed etymology for the
                            > >"apple" word with postulated *-ml- > *-bl-?

                            It was *(s)amlu- and it's not really _my_ etymology but it sounds clever
                            enough to adopt. This word is irrelevant to the topic of *-b- as well, since
                            the IE **b is an illusion in this case. Coincidently there are similar words
                            in Altaic for "fruit". I have to check a Turkish dictionary but I remember
                            /alim/.

                            > All right, Glen, I'm sure you know your Bomhard better than I do.
                            > >Nostraticism is a confusing business. For some unfathomable reason
                            > >Bomhard's ejectives correspond to Illich-Svitych's plain voiceless
                            >stops and vice versa.

                            Oh, that's not so confusing. Basically, IS was mad (...well, maybe not mad
                            but severely gone awry in the ejective department). He thought that these
                            plain voiceless stops in IE should correspond to lost ejectives found
                            outside in other Nostratic languages.

                            Bomhard has reworked the system so that it actually makes sense with
                            traditional IE [*d, *g, (*b)] corresponding to the Nostratic ejective series
                            [*t?, *k?, *p?].

                            Bomhard's arguement against ejectives being equated with these voiceless
                            stops was largely due to the fact that many of these words were pronouns and
                            grammatical elements. Pronouns and grammatical elements do not favour
                            ejectives.

                            For instance, IS reconstructed *k?o "who", which Bomhard sees as being more
                            properly reconstructed as two items of slightly different function,
                            *kWa-/*kW@ and *kwi-/*kwe- (Bomhard strangely thinks that Nostratic had
                            ablaut). I personally go for _one_ reconstruction in Nostratic (*ku) with an
                            added derivative in Steppe, giving *kWi "what?" vs. the *ku enclitic. (I use
                            a simple three-vowel system without ablaut which was probably caused by NWC
                            areal influence later on in Karvelian and IndoTyrrhenian). The Steppe
                            inanimate interrogative *kWi was corrupted by the animate interrogative *mi
                            "who?" and the original contrast of animacy is to be found in Uralic. Later
                            we find enclitic *kWe and interrogative pronoun *kWei in IndoTyrrhenian.
                            Tada! Much better.

                            >The Moscow School scholars (including Dolgopolsky) follow their >founding
                            >father contra the evil Americans.

                            Yes, I notice that the Cold War isn't quite over yet.

                            > BTW, the most recent version of Bomhard's Nostratic I've seen [...]
                            >the three series are symbolised *TH, *D, *T'. It seems he >regards
                            >aspiration as relevant in the voiceless stops. I've no idea if or how it
                            >affects his views on Proto-Altaic.

                            Hmm, well it would seem that he has revised some things since 1996 then. I
                            can't say it would affect too much with what little he had to offer
                            regarding Altaic in this book here.

                            > As for the Proto-Altaic system, it woud be interesting to know, >in
                            >the first place, what professional Altaicists think of it.

                            It would be interesting to know what Altaicists who aren't biased against
                            the Altaic Hypothesis think about it. This is half the problem. I expect
                            little to no agreement. From what I've gathered, Altaicists are more
                            interested in bickering about linguistic irrelevancies than in earnestly
                            finding the inheirited qualities of these languages.

                            >There is no standard reconstruction, in a word. The first-ever Altaic
                            > >Etymological Dictionary (by Starostin, Dybo and Mudrak) is to be
                            > >published soon; the authors do reconstruct a series of aspirated stops.

                            Hmm, thanks for the warning. I hope that they reconstruct the first person
                            singular with *m- like they're supposed to. Some of Starostin's
                            reconstructed numerals (the higher ones for "six" and "seven") are
                            interesting after we take away the errors caused by ignorance regarding the
                            binary nature of the Japanese numeral system: hitoru/futaru "one/two",
                            mitsu/mutsu "three/six", yotsu/yatsu "four/eight". In other words, if we
                            propose an etymology for one numeral of a pair above, chances are the other
                            one should be derivative of the first and not inherited from Altaic. Deep
                            stuff.

                            - gLeN

                            ________________________________________________________________________
                            Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
                          • Piotr Gasiorowski
                            ... From: Glen Gordon To: cybalist@egroups.com Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 7:24 AM Subject: Re: [TIED] Itchy and Scratchy Stops ... I don t understand your
                            Message 13 of 23 , May 31, 2000
                            • 0 Attachment
                               
                              ----- Original Message -----
                              Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 7:24 AM
                              Subject: Re: [TIED] Itchy and Scratchy Stops


                              >While such etymologies are a little on the fanciful side, I don't >think
                              >PIE *-b- was completely absent, though it was definitely very >rare (a fact
                              >which also calls for an explanation).

                              I don't understand your reasoning. Whether **-b- (or rather *p*/*p:) is rare
                              or is completely absent is an irrelevant issue. The same need for
                              explanation, as you say, is present regardless. This would mean that even if
                              we were to find the elusive **b, nothing would change until we found an
                              abundance of it. (Not gonna happen...)
                               
                              Let's stick with *b as the time-honoured standard spelling, whatever the phonetic reality (you like [p:], I fancy a laryngealised stop, both of which could plausibly have developed from [p’]; we agree at least that the sound is neither plain voiced, nor ejective). Its marginal presence is not quite an irrelevant issue. Actually, I think it might strengthen your case for a pre-PIE loss of *p’ if the gap could be shown to have undergone PARTIAL patching during the interval between that loss and the disintegration of PIE. This is what should realistically be expected: not complete absence, but limited presence here and there as a marginal phoneme - like English /ʒ/, for example, which has a defective distribution, no Old English source, and seems to be the rarest English consonantal phoneme by far, but nevertheless does its job as a gap-filler (the voiced counterpart of /ʃ/).
                                
                              >Could you refresh my memory as regards your proposed etymology for the
                              > >"apple" word with postulated *-ml- > *-bl-?

                              It was *(s)amlu- and it's not really _my_ etymology but it sounds clever
                              enough to adopt. This word is irrelevant to the topic of *-b- as well, since
                              the IE **b is an illusion in this case. Coincidently there are similar words
                              in Altaic for "fruit". I have to check a Turkish dictionary but I remember
                              /alim/.
                               
                              And *(s)amlu is...? And what's this optional *s? Talking of illusions, "alim ~ samlu" doesn't look too good. With so much metathetic freedom you might just as well add lemon as a cognate ;) . OK, it's getting late here and "apple" requires some space and time, so I'll leave it till tomorrow.
                               
                              Piotr
                            • Christopher Straughn
                              ... The closest Turkish word is elma meaning apple. The word for friut is meyve. There could be a phonetic connection, though, because Turkic, notably
                              Message 14 of 23 , May 31, 2000
                              • 0 Attachment
                                >It was *(s)amlu- and it's not really _my_ etymology but it sounds clever
                                >enough to adopt. This word is irrelevant to the topic of *-b- as well,
                                >since
                                >the IE **b is an illusion in this case. Coincidently there are similar
                                >words
                                >in Altaic for "fruit". I have to check a Turkish dictionary but I remember
                                >/alim/.

                                The closest Turkish word is "elma" meaning apple. The word for friut is
                                meyve. There could be a phonetic connection, though, because Turkic,
                                notably Azerbaijani, is notorious for transposing "l"s.

                                Chris
                                ________________________________________________________________________
                                Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
                              • Glen Gordon
                                ... Soytainly. ... Watch it. I can t read your phonetic symbols. I get the jist though of what you re saying and I accept this idea (if any clear examples
                                Message 15 of 23 , May 31, 2000
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Piotr:
                                  >Let's stick with *b as the time-honoured standard spelling

                                  Soytainly.

                                  >Actually, I think it might strengthen your case for a pre-PIE loss of
                                  > >*p��� if the gap could be shown to have undergone PARTIAL patching
                                  > >during the interval between that loss and the disintegration of PIE. This
                                  >is what should realistically be expected: not complete absence, [...]
                                  >like English /��/,

                                  Watch it. I can't read your phonetic symbols. I get the jist though of what
                                  you're saying and I accept this idea (if any clear examples should ever show
                                  up of *b).

                                  > And *(s)amlu is...? And what's this optional *s? Talking of
                                  > >illusions, "alim ~ samlu" doesn't look too good. With so much >metathetic
                                  >freedom you might just as well add lemon as a cognate ;) .

                                  Ah, Piotr. A skeptic to the end. That's why I love you. You're the perfect
                                  devil's advocate :) The *s- is seen in Anatolian languages and I presume
                                  that the phenomenon is related to the optional *s- found elsewhere in IE
                                  verbs, not to mention the Semitish loan *(s)teuros "bull" (Semitic *Tawru
                                  with initial dental fricative).

                                  Searching the LinguistList.org archives for the IE List, I got McCallister's
                                  etymology. On the Nostratic List was a post on this topic as well regarding
                                  G&I's proposal. Here's a synthesis of the viewpoints (including my own)
                                  presented so far between the Nostratic and IE lists:

                                  *(s)amlu- "apple, fruit"
                                  Germanic *ap(a)laz
                                  OE aeppel; OHG apful
                                  Celtic
                                  OIr uball, Welsh afal
                                  Italic
                                  Oscan Abella "apple town"
                                  Balto-Slavic
                                  O Sl abl�ko; OCS jabl'ko; Lith. �buolas
                                  Anatolian *sam(a)la-
                                  Hitt. samaluwanza "apple tree", Palaic samluwa-

                                  Miguel Carrasquer Vidal states March 8, 1999 on the LinguistList.org
                                  Nostratic List:

                                  "Gamqrelidze & Ivanov reconstruct PIE *s^amlu-, with *s^, which,
                                  according to them, gives zero outside of Anatolian (sakuwa ~
                                  *okw- "eye", sankui- ~ *onogh- "nail, claw")."

                                  Now, I'm not sure about this new *s^ phoneme that goes zero but if we
                                  reconstruct *(s)amlu-, at least, things are less speculative. I'd like to
                                  know where this word was borrowed from too. Semitish **Tamlu:, perhaps?
                                  Buddha only knows.

                                  - gLeN


                                  ________________________________________________________________________
                                  Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
                                • Dennis Poulter
                                  ... From: Glen Gordon To: Sent: Thursday, 01 June, 2000 6:25 AM Subject: Re: [TIED] Itchy and Scratchy Stops
                                  Message 16 of 23 , Jun 1, 2000
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    ----- Original Message -----
                                    From: Glen Gordon <glengordon01@...>
                                    To: <cybalist@egroups.com>
                                    Sent: Thursday, 01 June, 2000 6:25 AM
                                    Subject: Re: [TIED] Itchy and Scratchy Stops


                                    >
                                    > Now, I'm not sure about this new *s^ phoneme that goes zero but if we
                                    > reconstruct *(s)amlu-, at least, things are less speculative. I'd like to
                                    > know where this word was borrowed from too. Semitish **Tamlu:, perhaps?
                                    > Buddha only knows.
                                    >
                                    > - gLeN
                                    >

                                    There is an Arabic /Tamr(un)/ (T=fricative "th") meaning "fruit".
                                    There is also /Tml/, but this means "to get drunk".

                                    Cheers
                                    Dennis





                                    >
                                    > ________________________________________________________________________
                                    > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    > Accurate impartial advice on everything from laptops to table saws.
                                    > http://click.egroups.com/1/4634/0/_/2431/_/959811940/
                                    > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                  • Piotr Gasiorowski
                                    ... From: Dennis Poulter To: cybalist@egroups.com Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2000 11:01 AM Subject: Re: [TIED] Itchy and Scratchy Stops There is an Arabic
                                    Message 17 of 23 , Jun 1, 2000
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                       
                                      ----- Original Message -----
                                      Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2000 11:01 AM
                                      Subject: Re: [TIED] Itchy and Scratchy Stops


                                      There is an Arabic /Tamr(un)/ (T=fricative "th") meaning "fruit".
                                      There is also /Tml/, but this means "to get drunk".

                                      Cheers
                                      Dennis
                                       
                                      Perhaps originally "get drunk on cider" ;)
                                       
                                      Piotr

                                    • Tavi
                                      ... McCallister s ... regarding ... own) ... to ... perhaps? ... IMHO Hittite s^- in s^am(a)lu- apple would be a consequence of Fournet s Law. The Hittite
                                      Message 18 of 23 , Apr 3 5:34 AM
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        > Searching the LinguistList.org archives for the IE List, I got McCallister's
                                        > etymology. On the Nostratic List was a post on this topic as well regarding
                                        > G&I's proposal. Here's a synthesis of the viewpoints (including my own)
                                        > presented so far between the Nostratic and IE lists:
                                        >
                                        > *(s)amlu- "apple, fruit"
                                        > Germanic *ap(a)laz
                                        > OE aeppel; OHG apful
                                        > Celtic
                                        > OIr uball, Welsh afal
                                        > Italic
                                        > Oscan Abella "apple town"
                                        > Balto-Slavic
                                        > O Sl ablûko; OCS jabl'ko; Lith. óbuolas
                                        > Anatolian *sam(a)la-
                                        > Hitt. samaluwanza "apple tree", Palaic samluwa-
                                        >
                                        > Miguel Carrasquer Vidal states March 8, 1999 on the LinguistList.org
                                        > Nostratic List:
                                        >
                                        > "Gamqrelidze & Ivanov reconstruct PIE *s^amlu-, with *s^, which,
                                        > according to them, gives zero outside of Anatolian (sakuwa ~
                                        > *okw- "eye", sankui- ~ *onogh- "nail, claw")."
                                        >
                                        > Now, I'm not sure about this new *s^ phoneme that goes zero but if we
                                        > reconstruct *(s)amlu-, at least, things are less speculative. I'd like to
                                        > know where this word was borrowed from too. Semitish **Tamlu:, perhaps?
                                        > Buddha only knows.
                                        >
                                        IMHO Hittite s^- in s^am(a)lu- 'apple' would be a consequence of Fournet's Law.

                                        The Hittite word should be analyzed as a prefix *?\a- plus a root *mh\alV corresponding to NEC *mh\alV- ~ *mh\anV- 'warm'. This laryngeal fricative would cause the preceding *m to be denasalized in *?\a-mh\alV > *abol- 'apple'. And the variant *?\a-m\hanV would be reflected in Uralic *omena 'apple'.

                                      • Tavi
                                        ...
                                        Message 19 of 23 , Apr 5 6:21 AM
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Tavi" <oalexandre@...> wrote:
                                          >
                                          > IMHO Hittite s^- in s^am(a)lu- 'apple' would be a consequence of
                                          > Fournet's Law.
                                          >
                                          > The Hittite word should be analyzed as a prefix *?\a- plus a root
                                          > *mh\alV corresponding to NEC *mh\alV- ~ *mh\anV-
                                          > <http://newstar.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?single=1&basename=/data/ca\
                                          > uc/caucet&text_number=+111&root=config> 'warm'. This laryngeal
                                          > fricative would cause the preceding *m to be denasalized in *?\a-mh\alV
                                          > > *abol- 'apple'. And the variant *?\a-mh\anV would be reflected in
                                          > Uralic *omena 'apple'.
                                          >
                                          I'm assuming traditional PIE *h3 is a voiced pharyngeal fricative ?\, as suggested by some authors.

                                          > *sam-/*sºm-ro- 'summer' ~ *h2e:m-ºr- '(heat of the) day' (Greek he:méra, Armenian awr 'day')
                                          >
                                          This corresponds to Semitic *X\amm- 'to be hot; warm'
                                           
                                          Also Latin si:mius 'monkey, imitator' < *seim- can be linked to ima:go 'image' and aemulus 'imitator; enemy, rival' < *h2eim-.

                                          > By contrast, when *s- derives from a palatal sibilant like the one
                                          > proposed by Gamkrelidze-Ivanov, it corresponds to traditional PIE *y-:
                                          >
                                          > *sa(n)k- 'to sanctify' (Latin sacer, sanctus) ~ *yag^- 'to honour, to
                                          > worship' (Greek hágios, etc.)
                                          >
                                          Altaic *tHákHì 'ceremony, sacrifice', NEC *=@qE 'to rise, to be high' (victimes were raised over the altar in sacrifices).

                                          > *sah2-n- 'healthy' (Latin sa:nus) ~ *yak- 'to cure' (Greek ákos)
                                          >
                                          Altaic *sè:gù 'healthy; blood', Latin sanguis 'blood' (with prenasalization), NEC *ts\'a:tK\wV 'blood; life' (NEC lateral affricates are roughly similar to traditional PIE "palato-velars").

                                          There's also *sem- 'one, the same' (Latin similis) vs. *yem- 'twin' (Sanskrit yamá-).

                                          Thus we've got 3 different "Alexandre's Laws":

                                          1) *?\ (*h3 in traditional PIE) > *s-
                                          2) *X\ (*h2 in traditional PIE) > *s-
                                          3) A palatal affricate (*y in traditional PIE) > *s-.

                                          1) and 2) correspond to post-velar fricatives and 3) to dorso-palatals.
                                        • Rick McCallister
                                          From: Tavi To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, April 5, 2012 9:21 AM Subject: [tied] Re: apple   ... I m assuming traditional
                                          Message 20 of 23 , Apr 5 7:38 AM
                                          • 0 Attachment


                                            From: Tavi <oalexandre@...>
                                            To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
                                            Sent: Thursday, April 5, 2012 9:21 AM
                                            Subject: [tied] Re: apple

                                             
                                            --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Tavi" <oalexandre@...> wrote:
                                            >
                                            > IMHO Hittite s^- in s^am(a)lu- 'apple' would be a consequence of
                                            > Fournet's Law.
                                            >
                                            > The Hittite word should be analyzed as a prefix *?\a- plus a root
                                            > *mh\alV corresponding to NEC *mh\alV- ~ *mh\anV-
                                            > <http://newstar.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?single=1&basename=/data/ca\
                                            > uc/caucet&text_number=+111&root=config> 'warm'. This laryngeal
                                            > fricative would cause the preceding *m to be denasalized in *?\a-mh\alV
                                            > > *abol- 'apple'. And the variant *?\a-mh\anV would be reflected in
                                            > Uralic *omena 'apple'.
                                            >
                                            I'm assuming traditional PIE *h3 is a voiced pharyngeal fricative ?\, as suggested by some authors.

                                            > *sam-/*sºm-ro- 'summer' ~ *h2e:m-ºr- '(heat of the) day' (Greek he:méra, Armenian awr 'day')
                                            >
                                            This corresponds to Semitic *X\amm- 'to be hot; warm'
                                             
                                            Also Latin si:mius 'monkey, imitator' < *seim- can be linked to ima:go 'image' and aemulus 'imitator; enemy, rival' < *h2eim-.
                                            ****R Yes, but only if the latter words were borrowed from Greek, Armenian or Iranian

                                            > By contrast, when *s- derives from a palatal sibilant like the one
                                            > proposed by Gamkrelidze-Ivanov, it corresponds to traditional PIE *y-:
                                            >
                                            > *sa(n)k- 'to sanctify' (Latin sacer, sanctus) ~ *yag^- 'to honour, to
                                            > worship' (Greek hágios, etc.)
                                            >
                                            Altaic *tHákHì 'ceremony, sacrifice', NEC *=@qE 'to rise, to be high' (victimes were raised over the altar in sacrifices).

                                            > *sah2-n- 'healthy' (Latin sa:nus) ~ *yak- 'to cure' (Greek ákos)
                                            >
                                            Altaic *sè:gù 'healthy; blood', Latin sanguis 'blood' (with prenasalization), NEC *ts\'a:tK\wV 'blood; life' (NEC lateral affricates are roughly similar to traditional PIE "palato-velars").

                                            There's also *sem- 'one, the same' (Latin similis) vs. *yem- 'twin' (Sanskrit yamá-).
                                            ***R But wouldn't Latin gem- "twin" point to another direction

                                            Thus we've got 3 different "Alexandre's Laws":

                                            1) *?\ (*h3 in traditional PIE) > *s-
                                            2) *X\ (*h2 in traditional PIE) > *s-
                                            3) A palatal affricate (*y in traditional PIE) > *s-.

                                            1) and 2) correspond to post-velar fricatives and 3) to dorso-palatals.
                                             
                                            ****R
                                            Tavi --you're too busy trying to reinvent the wheel, use the information that's already out there or you'll go bonkers


                                          • Tavi
                                            ... ima:go image and aemulus imitator; ... or Iranian ... Not exactly, but from the paleo-dialect of the Steppes from which these languages descend. ...
                                            Message 21 of 23 , Apr 5 8:39 AM
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Rick McCallister <gabaroo6958@...> wrote:
                                              >
                                              > > Also Latin si:mius 'monkey, imitator' < *seim- can be linked to ima:go 'image' and aemulus 'imitator;
                                              > > enemy, rival' < *h2eim-.
                                              >
                                              > Yes, but only if the latter words were borrowed from Greek, Armenian or Iranian
                                              >
                                              Not exactly, but from the paleo-dialect of the Steppes from which these languages descend.

                                              > > There's also *sem- 'one, the same' (Latin similis) vs. *yem- 'twin' (Sanskrit yamá-).
                                              > But wouldn't Latin gem- "twin" point to another direction
                                              >
                                              As Latin is a "centum" language, g- could reflex either a palatalized velar stop *g^ or an affricate *dZ which yield *y- in the paleo-dialect of the Steppes.

                                              > Tavi --you're too busy trying to reinvent the wheel, use the information that's already out there or you'll go bonkers
                                              >
                                              Rick, I'm afraid these things aren't covered at all in the IE literature, except perhaps by Gamkrelidze-Ivanov, which aren't exactly mainstream.

                                              Speaking of wheels, I think IE *seh2ul 'sun' could be the satemized version of a word whose original meaning was 'circle', hence 'wheel' as in NEC *3wil3a (where /3/ stands for the epiglottal stop). This way, Old Irish súil 'eye' < *su:li wouldn't derive from 'sun' as commonly though but from a homonymous root represented by NEC *3wil3i 'eye'.

                                            • Tavi
                                              ... laryngeal ... reflected in ... The semantic motivation would be of course warm season fruit . I m not sure if IE *meh2l-o- apple is actually related
                                              Message 22 of 23 , Apr 11 5:45 AM
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Tavi" <oalexandre@...> wrote:
                                                >
                                                > IMHO Hittite s^- in s^am(a)lu- 'apple' would be a consequence of
                                                > Fournet's Law.
                                                >
                                                > The Hittite word should be analyzed as a prefix *?\a- plus a root
                                                > *mh\alV corresponding to NEC *mh\alV- ~ *mh\anV- 'warm'. This laryngeal
                                                > fricative would cause the preceding *m to be denasalized in
                                                > *?\a-mh\alV *abol- 'apple'. And the variant *?\a-mh\anV would be reflected in
                                                > Uralic *omena 'apple'.
                                                >
                                                The semantic motivation would be of course 'warm season' > 'fruit'.

                                                I'm not sure if IE *meh2l-o- 'apple' is actually related to this (presumably by way of metathesis) as there's another (although anthropomorphic) suggestive possibility: Avaro-Andian *maq'a:la (~ -o) 'throat, larynx', Svan m@-q'l-a, m@-q'l-i 'neck, throat' (< Kartvelian *q'el- 'neck'). Here we'd have 'throat' > 'Adam's apple'.


                                              • Tavi
                                                ... laryngeal ... Not only here, but also in Afrasian *? a-bVl- leaf, grass , Kartvelian *bal- leaf , IE *bhel- to bloom . This and other examples
                                                Message 23 of 23 , Apr 20 6:09 AM
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Tavi" <oalexandre@...> wrote:
                                                  >
                                                  > IMHO Hittite s^- in s^am(a)lu- 'apple' would be a consequence of
                                                  > Fournet's Law.
                                                  >
                                                  > The Hittite word should be analyzed as a prefix *?\a- plus a root
                                                  > *mh\alV corresponding to NEC *mh\alV- ~ *mh\anV- 'warm'. This laryngeal
                                                  > fricative would cause the preceding *m to be denasalized in
                                                  > *?\a-mh\alV *abol- 'apple'.
                                                  >
                                                  Not only here, but also in Afrasian *?\a-bVl- 'leaf, grass', Kartvelian *bal- 'leaf', IE *bhel- 'to bloom'.

                                                  This and other examples illustrate how the "Nostratic" castle is built upon a pile of Neolithic Wanderwörter.
                                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.