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

[tied] Re: PIE laringeals

Expand Messages
  • Richard Wordingham
    ... Further digging has muddied the waters further. While The Worlds Writing Systems used a Neo-Assyrian CUNEIFORM SIGN HI TIMES NUN when citing Hittite
    Message 1 of 18 , Mar 4, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham" <richard@...> wrote:
      >
      > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham" <richard@> wrote:
      >
      > > One might care to claim that this sign was the Akkadian symbol for
      > > glottal stop! It's the same character as used for ax/ix/ux in
      > > Hittite.

      > I've now identified it with the help of
      > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicode_cuneiform - it's U+12134
      > CUNEIFORM SIGN HI TIMES NUN. There's an interesting remark in the
      > Wiki page about U+1202A CUNEIFORM SIGN ALEPH - 'late variant of AH'.
      > (I've dropped the diacritic on the 'H'.)

      Further digging has muddied the waters further. While 'The Worlds
      Writing Systems' used a Neo-Assyrian CUNEIFORM SIGN HI TIMES NUN when
      citing Hittite spelling, the web page at
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hittite_cuneiform and the font it uses
      use U+1202A CUNEIFORM SIGN ALEPH. The shape is close to the one given
      in Held 1988 and seems to correspond to the the Neo-Babylonian form in
      the 'Labat charts' for Old Borger sign 397 'glottal stop'. The
      Neo-Assyrian form is not such a close match.

      So, Etherman23 was wrong and possibly right. Akkadian cuneiform does
      have a glottal stop symbol, and it's exactly what was used for what is
      transliterated as -ah- in Hittite!

      Richard.
    • Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
      On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 22:21:54 -0000, Richard Wordingham ... Well, the use as a glottal stop symbol is late, and the sign had been in use for /ax/ (or /Vx/ in
      Message 2 of 18 , Mar 4, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 22:21:54 -0000, "Richard Wordingham"
        <richard@...> wrote:

        >So, Etherman23 was wrong and possibly right. Akkadian cuneiform does
        >have a glottal stop symbol, and it's exactly what was used for what is
        >transliterated as -ah- in Hittite!

        Well, the use as a glottal stop symbol is late, and the sign
        had been in use for /ax/ (or /Vx/ in general) since Sumerian
        times. Sumerian has only one back fricative (so probably an
        unvoiced velar or uvular [x] ~ [X]). Akkadian uses Sumerian
        <x>-signs to write Semitic /x/ (while Semitic /?/, /h/, /H/,
        /¿/ and /G/ were not written until the "glottal stop"-signs
        were introduced).

        There's little relevance, I think, for the question of the
        PIE laryngeals: the sign <Vh> is used in Hittite for writing
        PIE *h2 _and_ *h3. The pronunciation will have been a velar
        or uvular fricative ([x] or [X]), although a voiced
        pronunciation ([G] or [R]) cannot be excluded (remember that
        Hittite also uses Akkadian <p,t,k,q> and <b,d,g>-signs
        indistinctively). Spellings with <hh> versus <h> may also
        be relevant here (Sturtevant's law).

        =======================
        Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
        miguelc@...
      • Patrick Ryan
        ... From: Richard Wordingham To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007
        Message 3 of 18 , Mar 4, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
           
          ----- Original Message -----
          Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 4:21 PM
          Subject: [tied] Re: PIE laringeals

          --- In cybalist@yahoogroup s.com, "Richard Wordingham" <richard@... > wrote:
          >
          > --- In cybalist@yahoogroup s.com, "Richard Wordingham" <richard@> wrote:
          >
          > > One might care to claim that this sign was the Akkadian symbol for
          > > glottal stop! It's the same character as used for ax/ix/ux in
          > > Hittite.

          > I've now identified it with the help of
          > http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Unicode_cuneifor m - it's U+12134
          > CUNEIFORM SIGN HI TIMES NUN. There's an interesting remark in the
          > Wiki page about U+1202A CUNEIFORM SIGN ALEPH - 'late variant of AH'.
          > (I've dropped the diacritic on the 'H'.)

          Further digging has muddied the waters further. While 'The Worlds
          Writing Systems' used a Neo-Assyrian CUNEIFORM SIGN HI TIMES NUN when
          citing Hittite spelling, the web page at
          http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Hittite_cuneifor m and the font it uses
          use U+1202A CUNEIFORM SIGN ALEPH. The shape is close to the one given
          in Held 1988 and seems to correspond to the the Neo-Babylonian form in
          the 'Labat charts' for Old Borger sign 397 'glottal stop'. The
          Neo-Assyrian form is not such a close match.

          So, Etherman23 was wrong and possibly right. Akkadian cuneiform does
          have a glottal stop symbol, and it's exactly what was used for what is
          transliterated as -ah- in Hittite!

          Richard.

          ***

          Is <ak(k)-u>, 'may he die', not written /a-ku/?

          The Sumero-Akkadian sign for /a/ was used in Hittite.

           

          Patrick

          *** 

        • Richard Wordingham
          ... Yes, but why need it have implied an initial consonant in Hittite? Consider iS-ta-an-da-a-it, which I have seen interpreted as /iStanta:it/ delayed .
          Message 4 of 18 , Mar 4, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
            wrote:

            > Is <ak(k)-u>, 'may he die', not written /a-ku/?
            >
            > The Sumero-Akkadian sign for /a/ was used in Hittite.

            Yes, but why need it have implied an initial consonant in Hittite?
            Consider iS-ta-an-da-a-it, which I have seen interpreted as
            /iStanta:it/ 'delayed'.

            Richard.
          • Richard Wordingham
            ... How were they not represented? Syllable initially, were they represented by vowel initials? I ve read that the Akkadian Vx symbol was once used as the
            Message 5 of 18 , Mar 4, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <miguelc@...>
              wrote:

              > Well, the use as a glottal stop symbol is late, and the sign
              > had been in use for /ax/ (or /Vx/ in general) since Sumerian
              > times. Sumerian has only one back fricative (so probably an
              > unvoiced velar or uvular [x] ~ [X]). Akkadian uses Sumerian
              > <x>-signs to write Semitic /x/ (while Semitic /?/, /h/, /H/,
              > /¿/ and /G/ were not written until the "glottal stop"-signs
              > were introduced).

              How were they not represented? Syllable initially, were they
              represented by vowel initials? I've read that the Akkadian Vx symbol
              was once used as the 'glottal stop' sign - Jerrold Cooper's
              contribution to the World's Writing Systems says on p47, converting
              his symbols to Latin-1: "AX = any vowel + /x/, and in earlier periods
              ' + any vowel; in later periods a separate sign derived from AX is
              used for ' + any vowel, or any vowel + '".

              The glottal stop symbol seems to be older in Babylonian than Assyrian
              - Labat has the symbol for old Babylonian but not old Assyrian.

              > There's little relevance, I think, for the question of the
              > PIE laryngeals: the sign <Vh> is used in Hittite for writing
              > PIE *h2 _and_ *h3.

              Old Babylonian is earlier than Hittite, so the Hittite <Vh> sign could
              derive from the Old Babylonian 'glottal stop' as one Hittite font
              implies by its encoding, and I'd like you to check that the Akkadian
              use of AX for 'glottal stop' sounds is too late to have been copied by
              Hittite.

              It seems to me that the spelling evidence that Hittite <Vh>
              represented /x/ or similar is not as strong as it loooked. It might
              be possible to appeal to a typological argument to re-instate a
              spelling-based argument. Doesn't a word-initial pre-vocalic contrast
              of glottal stop v. zero tend to have a very low functional yield?

              Richard.
            • Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
              On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 03:14:15 -0000, Richard Wordingham ... Yes. ... I already gave the sign list from Rüster & Neu (common syllabic signs containing /h/).
              Message 6 of 18 , Mar 5, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 03:14:15 -0000, "Richard Wordingham"
                <richard@...> wrote:

                >--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <miguelc@...>
                >wrote:
                >
                >> Well, the use as a glottal stop symbol is late, and the sign
                >> had been in use for /ax/ (or /Vx/ in general) since Sumerian
                >> times. Sumerian has only one back fricative (so probably an
                >> unvoiced velar or uvular [x] ~ [X]). Akkadian uses Sumerian
                >> <x>-signs to write Semitic /x/ (while Semitic /?/, /h/, /H/,
                >> /¿/ and /G/ were not written until the "glottal stop"-signs
                >> were introduced).
                >
                >How were they not represented? Syllable initially, were they
                >represented by vowel initials?

                Yes.

                >I've read that the Akkadian Vx symbol
                >was once used as the 'glottal stop' sign - Jerrold Cooper's
                >contribution to the World's Writing Systems says on p47, converting
                >his symbols to Latin-1: "AX = any vowel + /x/, and in earlier periods
                >' + any vowel; in later periods a separate sign derived from AX is
                >used for ' + any vowel, or any vowel + '".
                >
                >The glottal stop symbol seems to be older in Babylonian than Assyrian
                >- Labat has the symbol for old Babylonian but not old Assyrian.
                >
                >> There's little relevance, I think, for the question of the
                >> PIE laryngeals: the sign <Vh> is used in Hittite for writing
                >> PIE *h2 _and_ *h3.
                >
                >Old Babylonian is earlier than Hittite, so the Hittite <Vh> sign could
                >derive from the Old Babylonian 'glottal stop' as one Hittite font
                >implies by its encoding, and I'd like you to check that the Akkadian
                >use of AX for 'glottal stop' sounds is too late to have been copied by
                >Hittite.

                I already gave the sign list from Rüster & Neu (common
                syllabic signs containing /h/). Here it is again:

                Hitt Akk Sum
                ha ?a4 ha
                he hi
                hé hí hé
                hu [mus^en ("bird")]
                Vh ?V ah, uh
                hal hal
                hap hab
                hVr har, àr, hur, ur5
                has^
                hVt hat.
                hul hul
                hup hub
                luh làh làh, luh
                mah mah
                s^ah s^ih s^ah
                tVh tah

                All of the signs with Sumerian readings contain Sumerian
                /x/. Four of the signs with Akkadian readings contain
                Akkadian /x/. Only two were (secondarily) used in Akkadian
                to write /?/ (i.e etymological /?/, /h/, /H/, /¿/ and /G/).

                Note especially the sign <hat>, Sumerian PA, G~IDRU (staff,
                scepter), UGULA (overseer), with Akkadian reading <hat.> (as
                in <hat.t.u> "staff, scepter"), used in Hittite to write the
                name of <Hatti>, <Hattusas>, <Hattusili>, etc.


                =======================
                Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
                miguelc@...
              • Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
                On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 20:29:51 +0100, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal ... I forgot to mention: the vowel is often unexpectedly /e/. This may be phonologically based
                Message 7 of 18 , Mar 5, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 20:29:51 +0100, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
                  <miguelc@...> wrote:

                  >On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 03:14:15 -0000, "Richard Wordingham"
                  ><richard@...> wrote:
                  >
                  >>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <miguelc@...>
                  >>wrote:
                  >>
                  >>> Well, the use as a glottal stop symbol is late, and the sign
                  >>> had been in use for /ax/ (or /Vx/ in general) since Sumerian
                  >>> times. Sumerian has only one back fricative (so probably an
                  >>> unvoiced velar or uvular [x] ~ [X]). Akkadian uses Sumerian
                  >>> <x>-signs to write Semitic /x/ (while Semitic /?/, /h/, /H/,
                  >>> /¿/ and /G/ were not written until the "glottal stop"-signs
                  >>> were introduced).
                  >>
                  >>How were they not represented? Syllable initially, were they
                  >>represented by vowel initials?
                  >
                  >Yes.

                  I forgot to mention: the vowel is often unexpectedly /e/.
                  This may be phonologically based (/?/, /¿/, /H/, /G/, /h/
                  coloured the vowel to /e/), or a graphical device (Akkadian
                  didn't have /e/, and the Sumerian e-signs were used to mark
                  an otherwise unrepresentable laryngeal/pharyngeal).

                  =======================
                  Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
                  miguelc@...
                • C. Darwin Goranson
                  ... Winifred ... its ... myself, ... high ... or ... upside- ... when ... think ... or ... the ... happened ... in ... I don t know. ... been ... such as ...
                  Message 8 of 18 , Mar 5, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > On 2007-03-02 18:58, C. Darwin Goranson wrote:
                    >
                    > > Yay necromancy! But that aside, I have been modifying some of my
                    > > ideas on laryngeal identity, especially after reading some
                    Winifred
                    > > Lehmann. I think the result is part Lehmann, part Rasmussen in
                    its
                    > > nature, with a little bit of Goranson thrown in. ^.^
                    > >
                    > > h1 = either a glottal stop or a glottal fricative. These may have
                    > > been allophonic.
                    > > The voiced version of h1 is a schwa.
                    > >
                    > > h2 = voiceless velar or uvular fricative. I prefer the latter
                    myself,
                    > > but I could understand the possibility of it being velar before
                    high
                    > > vowels, i.e. that h2 is allophonically either a voiceless velar
                    or
                    > > uvular fricative.
                    > > The voiced version of h2 is a lowered schwa, represented as an
                    upside-
                    > > down a.
                    > > Adjacent to h2, *e eventually merged with natural PIE *a, but
                    when
                    > > this happened (Early-, Mid-, Late-, Post-PIE?) is uncertain. I
                    think
                    > > that before the merger, *e around h2 may have become a low front
                    or
                    > > central vowel, and since that wasn't too far different from *a,
                    the
                    > > two became pronounced the same. This would have DEFINITELY
                    happened
                    > > once or before the loss of the laryngeals.
                    > > Perhaps the intervocalic voicing of the h2 in Hittite is present
                    in
                    > > PIE, perhaps not - it's something to seriously look into.
                    >
                    > Does anything depend on it?

                    I don't know.

                    > > h3 = (rounded) voiced velar fricative. It seems likely to have
                    been
                    > > rounded, based on examples of laryngeal hardening in Germanic
                    such as
                    > > *kwikwaz from *gwih3os (lively).
                    >
                    > Lat. vi:vus, Skt. ji:vá-, OCS z^ivU, Lith. gy'vas, Gk. zo:ós all
                    require
                    > *gWih3wó-. In an article to be published later this year I derive
                    that
                    > ultimately from reduplicated *gWi-g(W)w-ó- with the dissimilation
                    of *g
                    > > *[G] = *h3. Germanic may have preserved the original formation
                    with a
                    > velar stop. Jens proposed the reverse change of *h3 > pre-Grimm *g
                    > *k
                    > in a 1989 article. In either case the articulation of *h3 and *g
                    must
                    > have been similar, but rounding needn't be assumed.

                    I look forward to reading the article! ^.^

                    > > The voiced version was a backed rounded version of schwa,
                    represented
                    > > as an o with a central bar.
                    >
                    > The voiced version of a voiced sound? (see below).
                    >
                    > > Adjacent to h3, *e eventually merged with natural PIE *o, but
                    again,
                    > > when this happened is uncertain. I think that before the merger,
                    *e
                    > > around h3 may have become a mid front rounded vowel; this isn't
                    too
                    > > far from *o, and eventually the two merged. The exact phonetic
                    > > position of this one, admittedly, is probably the weakest of the
                    > > bunch.
                    > >
                    > > Does this sound plausible?
                    >
                    > Quite plausible, except that you seem to be using "voiced" with the
                    > meaning normally given to "syllabic" or "vocalised".
                    >
                    > piotr

                    My bad. You're right - I meant to say syllabic.
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.