[tied] Re: Origin of Thematic Neuter -om (was: 1sg. -o:)
- --- In email@example.com, glen gordon <glengordon01@y...> wrote:
>My only issue here is getting from *it to PIE *es. The vocalism makes
> > It's weak because *bhi is obviously a particle that
> > became an inflection in some languages. It seems
> > more obvious to me that *-e- is a plural (possibly
> > from an earlier *-i- which would be cognate with
> > Uralic *-i plural, and/or PAA *-a-).
> Yes, we seem to be agreeing (aside from the AA
> comparison). There would have to be a common
> _oblique_ plural *-i, used in complement with *-it
> (IE *-es, Tyr *-er, Ur *-t, Alt *-r^) in the strong
> cases. This plural is an artifact in plural IE
> pronouns like *wei-.
> Comparison between Uralic and EA shows that *-i
> seems to alternate with a plural in *-t and I believe
> that this is the original pattern from Proto-Steppe.
no sense to me. On the other hand the accusative and genitive plurals
are easily derived if we assume they were both derived from the
accusative singular. The strong case plural is *t so *mt > *ms (by
lenition) > *ns by assimilation (these last two steps could be
reversed). In the weak cases the plural is *i. If this became an infix
then we would have *im > *em (according to my theory of PPIE vowels) >
*om by Rasmussen's Law.
- This is a polite and reasoned response to my criticisms.
It is a method of answering criticism we could all seek to emulate.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Grzegorz Jagodzinski" <grzegorj2000@...>
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 2:07 AM
Subject: Re: Re: [tied] Re: *kap-
> Patrick Ryan wrote:
> > ***
> > Patrick:
> > I am going to comment here on the language being used not on the main
> > argument which is being handled nicely by Grzegorz and Brian.
> > Grzegorz, I think you do not understand that implying someone is
> > "undereducated", as you do here below, is an insult, and an
> > argumentum ad hominem, even if it be true.
> Patrick, you would have been right if I had written "you are
> But I had not. "You quote bad sources written by undereducated ones" means
> not the same. You may term it an attack ad homines if you insist, or
> ad personas - but it is not a direct attack towards a person I discuss
> A subtle but important difference.
> I only stated, and I maintain it, than most linguist (the majority) did
> even know what Zipf wrote. They think that he wrote only about statistic
> classes, and they quote one another in this point to motivate what they
> think. Only few (the minority) have the consciousness that Zipf formulated
> law which deals with probabilities and word length in a text. Which is
> the majority sometimes tries to send the minority back to school or
> that the minority misscalls Zipf's law. Very sad, indeed.
> > Terming someone's argument "ridiculous", i.e. 'worthy of ridicule', is
> > similarly offensive.
> Not similarly, and it is not an attack ad hominem but an attack ad
> argumentum. Anyway, it is much less offensive than "don't be ridiculous",
> isn't it? I have heard such lines from my adversary but he has not heard
> such a statement from me, so you need not be his attorney.
> > I would also suggest a new thread, "Zipf's Law", since the arguments
> > advanced bear little relationship to *kap-.
> I do not think it is needed. As I said, it was not my intention to explain
> what Zipf's law is and what it is not, which linguists understand this
> only like a statistic law and which linguists understand this term as a
> saying about relations between word lengths and frequencies. I talked
> some words which were changed due to frequency and not because of such or
> another phonetic rule ("sound law"). I quoted Zipf's law as the base for
> statement. And even if it appeared that there is not the accordance here
> what Zipf's law is and what it is not, I have been under impression that
> nobody calls my argument in question. But "has", "had" developed
> irregularily, and they are in close relation to PIE *kVp-. Ergo: we should
> expect that *kVp- developed irregularily in other languages as well. Ergo:
> Latin and Germanic habe:- may be related even if against known sound
> This is what is important, all the rest is unnecessary commentary.
> > What published authors (print or Net) say about
> > Zipf is interesting
> ... but it is more interesting what Zipf himself said. I gave a quotation.
> > but lining up a group of publishers who _seem_
> > to agree with you
> Is there any seeming in terming Zipf's law "dealing with probabilities and
> word length in a text"? Or in the statement "George K. Zipf is famous for
> his law of abbreviations"? (it's from the article quoted by Brian, by the
> way) But abbreviation = a making shorter, and short has something to do
> length, and not with statistic classes, isn't it? So, what doubt have you?
> > is only proof that some interpret Zipf in the same
> > way that you do (if, in fact, they do - which I sincerely doubt).
> If you are interested in this problem, read W. Man'czak's book "Problemy
> je,zykoznawstwa ogólnego". Yes, of course, the book is in Polish, and what
> of it. Professor Man'czak, who is a Romancist and a scholar interested in
> generel linguistics, gives a detailed analysis of the problem and plenty
> examples on how Zipf's law functions. At the beginning of chapter 3, he
> wrote (my translation): "even if the name of the American linguist Zipf is
> scarcely known to most linguists, there is no doubt that the history of
> linguistics will acknowledge him as one of the most eminent lingists of
> 20th century". It appears that we should agree with both those statements:
> that Zipf is scarcely known and that his law has much more universal
> character than so called "sound laws".
> > You both want to determine exactly what Zipf had in mind with his
> > formulation? Ask him (if he is still alive?).
> Not a problem, let's read his books. I cited him just because of this.
> Grzegorz J.
> To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new
> Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
> Yahoo! Groups Links