Re: The palatal sham :) (Re: [tied] Re: Albanian (1))
>>> My point was more that PIE /a/ seems to have a different function bothAnd why do you feel that there was no /a~o~zero/?
>>> from /i,u/ and from /e,o/.
>> What "different function"?
> /a/ just is. Whereas /e~o~zero/ correlates with certain grammatical forms
> (eg /o/ in causatives, nouns).
> (b) an ablauting vowel with one of two different forms, if present: /e ~It seems like your entire basis for seperating *e and *o on the one hand
> o ~ zero/
> (c) /a/.
and *a on the other is because of an assumption that *a doesn't partake in
ablaut. Unless you can be sure of that, I'm not sure how you can justify
making *a as "special" as you make it out to be.
> Another thing about Bomhard: how come there are no context-sensitiveIn defense of Bomhard, I still think did a better job than
> palatalisations in his rules over several millenia, when Slavic alone
> had three or four?
anything else I've come across from the older works of IS or
I don't expect him to find all the rules at once but I do
think that proper analysis of each individual language family
is lacking in Nostratic. It's a large task to get very
familiar and educated on more than one proto-language afterall.
There's just so much to read. I'm still learning about crazy
things in IE that throw me for a theoretical loop.
> BTW Holger Pedersen has the same idea of breaking up all PIEBut not for IE where *deiwo- or *dyeu- is reconstructed. These
> consonant clusters in a short remark about future trends (using
> <deus> and <divus>, supposedly from *däjäwä-) in his History of
> Linguistics in the 19th century. Cuny uses it too. (Written as
syllabics can only be reconstructed into a pre-IE stage.