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

Laryngeals revisited

Expand Messages
  • C. Darwin Goranson
    Form what I can tell, the 3 laryngeals are vowel-changing sounds. I ve seen several views on their indentities: aspirated (like the Russian X or German ch in
    Message 1 of 91 , Jun 28, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Form what I can tell, the 3 laryngeals are vowel-changing sounds. I've
      seen several views on their indentities: aspirated (like the Russian X
      or German "ch" in "Bach"), as variants on the schwa, and as sounds
      like the Arabic or old Hebrew ayin (glottal plosive), aleph (glottal
      stop), and heh (an "h"). Which is most widely accepted? And would
      there be a "w" sound in things like *kwon, or would it be like a
      close-mouthed "kon"? If there IS a "w" sounds, wouldn't Pxwter sound a
      bit too consonant-based? Unless of course, PIE was like Georgian and
      generally dropped vowels.

      Amd is it now more generally accepted that Hittite is the first branch
      of PIE?
    • stlatos
      ... The paradigm dé:gan, dagná:s would be evidence for PIE *degho:m, *dghmos (with insertion of @ a, or maybe *doghmos) if taken at face value. However,
      Message 91 of 91 , Oct 2, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "elmeras2000" <jer@...> wrote:

        > The word for "earth" is Hitt. tekan, gen.
        > tagnas, which must represent a more original form of the paradigm
        > which was changed in the other branches by introduction of the
        > product of the cluster *d(h)g^h- as it had been in the locative, **d
        > (h)g^h-ém(-i) > IE *g^h{th}ém(-i) (Ved. ks.ámi). This is one of the
        > mainstays of the understanding of the "thorn" clusters in IE. It is
        > of course also one of the basic arguments for an Indo-Hittite model,
        > indicating as it does that Anatolian was the first branch to split
        > away from the IE unity. This is all classical knowledge by now.
        >
        > Jens
        >

        The paradigm dé:gan, dagná:s would be evidence for PIE *degho:m,
        *dghmos (with insertion of @>a, or maybe *doghmos) if taken at face
        value. However, there are problems.

        It's hard to see how the above paradigm could give *ghdo:m so
        consistently in the rest. No other languages have anything with
        *dogh, *degh, *d@gh, or *dagh due to insertion or retention in 'earth'
        or derivatives. Changes of sC- to isC- and tk>tak as h^ar-ta-ag-ga-
        (xartaka-?) in Hittite could be evidence of insertion as a possible
        explanation for dé:gan, dagná:s, but why would the V be e in one case
        and a in another?

        The other branch used to support *dgh- is Tocharian *tken > TA tkaM,
        TB keM with m > n in the nominative spreading to all forms (like
        Hittite). This shows no e between t_k and an odd e where o might be
        expected. This might be explained by analogy of o:m with om+ in the
        obl. with -om > -em (tying in with -os > -e), but there are no other
        examples.

        However, if both cognates are explained by the same changes, another
        possibility exists. If -o:m > -e:m in both, then the inserted V in
        dé:gan, dagná:s and xartaka- would always be the same as the following
        V (en > an later, regularly). Thus the same form *ghdo:m > *dghe:m >
        dé:gan, *tken > TA tkaM, TB keM as well as G khthó:n, L hu:m-, Alb
        dhe, etc.


        To Anatolian and Tocharian:

        *ghdo:m
        *dgho:m
        *dghe:m


        To Hittite:

        *dghe:m ... *dghmos
        *deghe:m .. *doghmos
        *deghe:m .. *daghmas
        *deghem
        *deghen
        *deghan
        *degan
        *degan .... *dagnas (ana. with nom causes m>n)


        The same with other Anatolian (loc. *dghomi > *doghomi > Luw *dagami
        takami).
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.