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

Re: [tied] xY>xy; x>s; etc. (was: Latin m>w, w>m)

Expand Messages
  • fournet.arnaud
    ... From: stlatos To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 11:31 PM Subject: [Courrier indésirable] [tied] xY xy; x s; etc. (was: Latin
    Message 1 of 7 , Sep 30, 2007
       
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: stlatos
      Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 11:31 PM
      Subject: [Courrier indésirable] [tied] xY>xy; x>s; etc. (was: Latin m>w, w>m)

      > ============ ========= =
      >
      > the plain x>s() also in:
      >
      > *bhax+ 'shine, appear'
      > *bhanYax+ (present)
      > *bhanY-x-mYn. , > *phanYsY-mYn. , > phasma / phantasma
      > ============ ===
      If both *+smn, and *+smo+s were separate from *+mn, and *+mo+s they
      should appear with roots with any type of V and C combinations equally
      often; since they do not and vary within IE languages I think later
      sound changes of C>s and C>Cs, etc., seem more likely.
      ===================

      A.F :
       
      1. I understand -x- as : unvoiced velar spirant ?
      The identification of H2 as unvoiced is falsifiable with absolute certainty.
       
      Following the orthodox approach to H2,
      it is kept in Anatolian as h or hh.
       
      The word kilu-hepa (of Hourrite origin but this changes nothing).
      was heard by Egyptians of the Middle Kingdom as k_r_g_p.
      g is a voiced velar stop.
      Egyptian has no voiced velar spirant but it had :
      - unvoiced velar stop k
      - unvoiced velar spirant kh
      - unvoiced pharyngal spirant H
      - voiced glottal spirant h
      - probably glottalized velar stop q
      Hence,
      Egyptians CHOSE a voiced velar stop as the best match for -h-.
       
      The identification of H2 as unvoiced is impossible.
      My point of view is that all values of H2 are either voiced or glottalized.
      -x- is H1.
       
      2. as regards this supposed palatalization of H2 into -s-,
      Apart from the fact that this should be phaz-ma,
       
      I don't understand the use of positing such a change.
      the suffix -s-m is a regular morpheme of Greek
      although the most frequent form is -is-m-os
       
      This word is entirely explained as a Greek creation
      from PIE *bhaH2 plus -s- infinitive plus -m- instrumental.
       
      I don't understand the purpose of inventing a phonological law
      for PIE from a Greek word what is obviously 100% Greek creation.
       
      I don't believe this change applies to PIE.
      But If I had to study this,
      I would rather look at examples like : to blow, bla-s-en, blare 
      The problem is that -s- can be explained as being a suffix.
      You need an example not explainable thru morphology to support H > s.
       
      3. I asked you to provide examples for glottalized m? :
      You dodge the question.
       
      I believe glottalized m did not merge with m? in PIE.
       
      As regards yam? "sea" :
      Semitic : yam
      Greek : yaw-ani "ionian"
       
      Samoyed : yamx (realized as fricative velar) < *yam? "Artic Sea".
      This word does not end with -m- but -mx-.
      Any suffix like -k- or -x- should have assimilated -m- as -ng-.
      So this word is "naked" : no suffix.
       
      From this example, I infer that the correspondance for :
      m is m = m = m
      m? is m = w = m
       
      What are your examples ?
       
      =====================
      You wrote :
      I've given the correspondences many times before. Since I have to
      show rules in which xY > x+y and so on they are more convenient. With
      all the extra sounds I have for PIE I can't use abstractions when
      trying to convince people of their nature.
       
      ===========
      A.F
      It doesn't take much time to write if [?] or [x] is H1 or H2.
      And it makes things clearer.
       
      =======================
    • stlatos
      ... Latin m w, w m) ... certainty. In my earlier descriptions; I ve said x() G() / V_V and GY y / GW v there. Even so, more ev. than what you have below
      Message 2 of 7 , Sep 30, 2007
        --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
        wrote:
        >
        >
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: stlatos
        > To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 11:31 PM
        > Subject: [Courrier indésirable] [tied] xY>xy; x>s; etc. (was:
        Latin m>w, w>m)

        > > ======================
        > >
        > > the plain x>s() also in:
        > >
        > > *bhax+ 'shine, appear'
        > > *bhanYax+ (present)
        > > *bhanY-x-mYn., > *phanYsY-mYn., > phasma / phantasma
        > > ===============
        > If both *+smn, and *+smo+s were separate from *+mn, and *+mo+s they
        > should appear with roots with any type of V and C combinations equally
        > often; since they do not and vary within IE languages I think later
        > sound changes of C>s and C>Cs, etc., seem more likely.
        > ===================
        >
        > A.F :
        >
        > 1. I understand -x- as : unvoiced velar spirant ?
        > The identification of H2 as unvoiced is falsifiable with absolute
        certainty.

        In my earlier descriptions; I've said x() > G() / V_V and GY > y /
        GW > v there. Even so, more ev. than what you have below makes it
        likely Hittite had x in most positions; if it was G somewhere there's
        no way of showing which is original, and I'm not interested in trying.

        > 2. as regards this supposed palatalization of H2 into -s-,

        Mostly something of a reverse pal. of xY>s. and

        > Apart from the fact that this should be phaz-ma,

        the later voicing has nothing to do with my rules.

        > I don't understand the use of positing such a change.
        > the suffix -s-m is a regular morpheme of Greek
        > although the most frequent form is -is-m-os

        That's a later analogical creation for verbs ending in -iz[d]o: and
        doesn't have any connection to the supposed PIE *+smn, and *+smo+s.

        > This word is entirely explained as a Greek creation
        > from PIE *bhaH2 plus -s- infinitive plus -m- instrumental.

        Why would this -s- not be added to every sort of stem? There are so
        many different changes in each IE language I know it's not obvious at
        first sight, but the ev. is certain even if complicated.

        > I don't understand the purpose of inventing a phonological law
        > for PIE from a Greek word what is obviously 100% Greek creation.

        I'm trying to explain why something like phantasma would be created;
        at any stage it would be irregular if newly formed, sound changes must
        have obscured its origin. I gave my considered opinion.

        Other changes involving sim. original clusters:

        *H2an-H1,-mn, = *xan-xY,-mYn., > *ans.ma 'breathing'

        then opt. ns. > nts. (as in the dif. between phasma / phantasma) which
        in this case undergoes metathesis so:

        *ants.ma > *anths.ma > *ansthma > asthma

        Both changes of KY > T. and met. also in:

        *xaxarisYkYox > ararisko: 'arrange'

        *xarisYkYmos > *aris.t.mos > *arit.s.mos > arithmos 'number'

        > I don't believe this change applies to PIE.

        It's not a PIE change; it's Greek, and sim. changes happen in other IE
        languages, though at dif. times. Armenian has *mYn. > *wr. later,
        after more C > Cs. changes (*luukYmYn., > *luks.wr., > lusawor-).

        > But If I had to study this,
        > I would rather look at examples like : to blow, bla-s-en, blare
        > The problem is that -s- can be explained as being a suffix.

        Almost any sound could also be a morpheme by itself in PIE; yet new
        sounds are created all the time in any language, having nothing to do
        with meaning, only phonetics.

        > 3. I asked you to provide examples for glottalized m? :
        > You dodge the question.

        I have no idea what ev. would convince you; since m? > m there's
        nothing within PIE showing it clearly.
      • Rick McCallister
        Re asthma, online compact OED has asthma /asm/ • noun a medical condition marked by difficulty in breathing. — DERIVATIVES asthmatic adjective & noun. —
        Message 3 of 7 , Sep 30, 2007
          Re asthma, online compact OED has

          asthma
          /asm/

          • noun a medical condition marked by difficulty in
          breathing.

          — DERIVATIVES asthmatic adjective & noun.

          — ORIGIN Greek, from azein ‘breathe hard’.

          BUT I've also seen it derived from an Arabic word
          meaning "crisis"


          --- stlatos <stlatos@...> wrote:

          > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "fournet.arnaud"
          > <fournet.arnaud@...>
          > wrote:
          > >
          > >
          > > ----- Original Message -----
          > > From: stlatos
          > > To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
          > > Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 11:31 PM
          > > Subject: [Courrier indésirable] [tied] xY>xy;
          > x>s; etc. (was:
          > Latin m>w, w>m)
          >
          > > > ======================
          > > >
          > > > the plain x>s() also in:
          > > >
          > > > *bhax+ 'shine, appear'
          > > > *bhanYax+ (present)
          > > > *bhanY-x-mYn., > *phanYsY-mYn., > phasma /
          > phantasma
          > > > ===============
          > > If both *+smn, and *+smo+s were separate from
          > *+mn, and *+mo+s they
          > > should appear with roots with any type of V and
          > C combinations equally
          > > often; since they do not and vary within IE
          > languages I think later
          > > sound changes of C>s and C>Cs, etc., seem more
          > likely.
          > > ===================
          > >
          > > A.F :
          > >
          > > 1. I understand -x- as : unvoiced velar spirant
          > ?
          > > The identification of H2 as unvoiced is
          > falsifiable with absolute
          > certainty.
          >
          > In my earlier descriptions; I've said x() > G() /
          > V_V and GY > y /
          > GW > v there. Even so, more ev. than what you have
          > below makes it
          > likely Hittite had x in most positions; if it was G
          > somewhere there's
          > no way of showing which is original, and I'm not
          > interested in trying.
          >
          > > 2. as regards this supposed palatalization of H2
          > into -s-,
          >
          > Mostly something of a reverse pal. of xY>s. and
          >
          > > Apart from the fact that this should be phaz-ma,
          >
          > the later voicing has nothing to do with my rules.
          >
          > > I don't understand the use of positing such a
          > change.
          > > the suffix -s-m is a regular morpheme of Greek
          > > although the most frequent form is -is-m-os
          >
          > That's a later analogical creation for verbs
          > ending in -iz[d]o: and
          > doesn't have any connection to the supposed PIE
          > *+smn, and *+smo+s.
          >
          > > This word is entirely explained as a Greek
          > creation
          > > from PIE *bhaH2 plus -s- infinitive plus -m-
          > instrumental.
          >
          > Why would this -s- not be added to every sort of
          > stem? There are so
          > many different changes in each IE language I know
          > it's not obvious at
          > first sight, but the ev. is certain even if
          > complicated.
          >
          > > I don't understand the purpose of inventing a
          > phonological law
          > > for PIE from a Greek word what is obviously 100%
          > Greek creation.
          >
          > I'm trying to explain why something like phantasma
          > would be created;
          > at any stage it would be irregular if newly formed,
          > sound changes must
          > have obscured its origin. I gave my considered
          > opinion.
          >
          > Other changes involving sim. original clusters:
          >
          > *H2an-H1,-mn, = *xan-xY,-mYn., > *ans.ma 'breathing'
          >
          > then opt. ns. > nts. (as in the dif. between phasma
          > / phantasma) which
          > in this case undergoes metathesis so:
          >
          > *ants.ma > *anths.ma > *ansthma > asthma
          >
          > Both changes of KY > T. and met. also in:
          >
          > *xaxarisYkYox > ararisko: 'arrange'
          >
          > *xarisYkYmos > *aris.t.mos > *arit.s.mos > arithmos
          > 'number'
          >
          > > I don't believe this change applies to PIE.
          >
          > It's not a PIE change; it's Greek, and sim. changes
          > happen in other IE
          > languages, though at dif. times. Armenian has *mYn.
          > > *wr. later,
          > after more C > Cs. changes (*luukYmYn., > *luks.wr.,
          > > lusawor-).
          >
          > > But If I had to study this,
          > > I would rather look at examples like : to blow,
          > bla-s-en, blare
          > > The problem is that -s- can be explained as
          > being a suffix.
          >
          > Almost any sound could also be a morpheme by
          > itself in PIE; yet new
          > sounds are created all the time in any language,
          > having nothing to do
          > with meaning, only phonetics.
          >
          > > 3. I asked you to provide examples for
          > glottalized m? :
          > > You dodge the question.
          >
          > I have no idea what ev. would convince you; since
          > m? > m there's
          > nothing within PIE showing it clearly.
          >
          >
          >




          ____________________________________________________________________________________
          Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more.
          http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC
        • stlatos
          ... It seems clear there were Greek words: *adzehen to go a *hadzehen to go ha with a an exclamation of surprise, injury, etc.; and ha a breath;
          Message 4 of 7 , Sep 30, 2007
            --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Rick McCallister <gabaroo6958@...> wrote:
            >
            > Re asthma, online compact OED has
            >
            > asthma
            > /asm/
            >
            > • noun a medical condition marked by difficulty in
            > breathing.
            >
            > — DERIVATIVES asthmatic adjective & noun.
            >
            > — ORIGIN Greek, from azein `breathe hard'.

            It seems clear there were Greek words:

            *adzehen 'to go "a"'

            *hadzehen 'to go "ha"'

            with "a" an exclamation of surprise, injury, etc.; and "ha" a breath;
            they extended their meaning metaphorically, mixing (helped by Ion.
            h>0, etc.). I wouldn't try to untangle their exact path of relations.

            The point is they must be fairly recent, and in no way would be
            expected to regularly form a noun asthma instead of *asma.

            Between C_C s causes C>CH then s>0, but in a cluster like ntsm met.
            or V-insertion to change the cluster at some stage would seem very likely.
          • fournet.arnaud
            ... From: stlatos To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 11:40 PM Subject: [Courrier indésirable] Re: [tied] xY xy; x s; etc. (was:
            Message 5 of 7 , Oct 1, 2007
               
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: stlatos
              Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 11:40 PM
              Subject: [Courrier indésirable] Re: [tied] xY>xy; x>s; etc. (was: Latin m>w, w>m)

              ===========

              > A.F :
              >
              > 1. I understand -x- as : unvoiced velar spirant ?
              > The identification of H2 as unvoiced is falsifiable with absolute
              certainty.

              In my earlier descriptions; I've said x() > G() / V_V and GY > y /
              GW > v there. Even so, more ev. than what you have below makes it
              likely Hittite had x in most positions; if it was G somewhere there's
              no way of showing which is original,

              and I'm not interested in trying.
              =============

              A.F :

              "not interesting in trying".

              I have my own convictions, but I am not AFRAID of looking at other people's data and hypotheses. I feel it is exciting and stimulating, even though I often disagree.

              I understand this statement as a form of weakness :

              You need to avoid looking at this hypothesis because you feel insecure.

              Bad news as far as you are concerned.

              ======================

              > 2. as regards this supposed palatalization of H2 into -s-,

              Mostly something of a reverse pal. of xY>s. and

              > Apart from the fact that this should be phaz-ma,

              the later voicing has nothing to do with my rules.

              > I don't understand the use of positing such a change.
              > the suffix -s-m is a regular morpheme of Greek
              > although the most frequent form is -is-m-os

              That's a later analogical creation for verbs ending in -iz[d]o: and
              doesn't have any connection to the supposed PIE *+smn, and *+smo+s.

              > This word is entirely explained as a Greek creation
              > from PIE *bhaH2 plus -s- infinitive plus -m- instrumental.

              Why would this -s- not be added to every sort of stem? There are so
              many different changes in each IE language I know it's not obvious at
              first sight, but the ev. is certain even if complicated.

              =================

              A.F :

              Which instances do you have where -s- is not added ?

              this -s- in Greek seems to be pervading many items.

              =======================

              > I don't understand the purpose of inventing a phonological law
              > for PIE from a Greek word what is obviously 100% Greek creation.

              I'm trying to explain why something like phantasma would be created;
              at any stage it would be irregular if newly formed, sound changes must
              have obscured its origin. I gave my considered opinion.

              =======================

              A.F

              I don't think this is irregular : all morphemes involved are good PIE :

              bh_H2 + nt + s + m

              The order is a bit unusual. You might expect -nt- to be last.

              As far as I am concerned, I don't think this unusual order is a "huge" problem.

              ======================

              Other changes involving sim. original clusters:

              *H2an-H1,-mn, = *xan-xY,-mYn. , > *ans.ma 'breathing'

              ==========

              A.F

              H2 is the same as H1 ?

              Strange !?

              I don't believe this.
              ====================


              then opt. ns. > nts. (as in the dif. between phasma / phantasma) which
              in this case undergoes metathesis so:

              *ants.ma > *anths.ma > *ansthma > asthma

              ===================

              A.F

              This example is worth considering, although unclear :

              My own guess : Asthma = un-breath = n-H2nH1-sm- ??

              It is hard to know where a true vowel can be inserted to fluidify this pack of consonants.

              You might be near to the right solution, but it still lacks something.

              ========================== 



              Both changes of KY > T. and met. also in:

              *xaxarisYkYox > ararisko: 'arrange'

              *xarisYkYmos > *aris.t.mos > *arit.s.mos > arithmos 'number'

              ==============================

              A.F

              I don't believe this

              but it takes too long to explain.

              =====================

              > I don't believe this change applies to PIE.

              It's not a PIE change; it's Greek, and sim. changes happen in other IE
              languages, though at dif. times. Armenian has *mYn. > *wr. later,
              after more C > Cs. changes (*luukYmYn., > *luks.wr., > lusawor-).

              ==================

              A.F :

              ok why not !?

              I prefer it to be only Greek, although I am still unconvinced.

              I misunderstood you as implying a PIE-stage change.

              I will try to find other examples in Greek, which I may believe.

              ====================

              > But If I had to study this,
              > I would rather look at examples like : to blow, bla-s-en, blare
              > The problem is that -s- can be explained as being a suffix.

              Almost any sound could also be a morpheme by itself in PIE; yet new
              sounds are created all the time in any language, having nothing to do
              with meaning, only phonetics.

              > 3. I asked you to provide examples for glottalized m? :
              > You dodge the question.

              I have no idea what ev. would convince you; since m? > m there's
              nothing within PIE showing it clearly.

              ==================

              A.F

              You wrote "m? and m fused long before PIE"

              This contains more than one statement :

              1. m? and m can be distinguished. (ok with me)

              2 . they were fused in PIE. (I think this is false)

              3. A language cognate to PIE has a different treatment. (I think it is true)

              4. This different treatment can be showed to be "much" (= "long"= earlier than the split of PIE with its closest cognate languagues. (I think it is very difficult to prove this)

              If you wrote this "responsably", (I am confident you know what you do and say)

              you must have data to substantiate or hint that these statements make sense.

              (I have already been waiting for a week about your data)

              ================

               

               

               

               

               

               



               

            • stlatos
              ... Latin m w, w m) ... They re not the same: H1 = xY and H2 = x ... people s data and hypotheses. I didn t say I was afraid. I don t feel there s much point
              Message 6 of 7 , Oct 1, 2007
                --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
                wrote:
                >
                >
                > ----- Original Message -----
                > From: stlatos
                > To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
                > Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 11:40 PM
                > Subject: [Courrier indésirable] Re: [tied] xY>xy; x>s; etc. (was:
                Latin m>w, w>m)

                > ======================
                >
                > Other changes involving sim. original clusters:
                >
                > *H2an-H1,-mn, = *xan-xY,-mYn., > *ans.ma 'breathing'
                >
                > ==========
                >
                > A.F
                >
                > H2 is the same as H1 ?
                >
                > Strange !?
                >
                > I don't believe this.
                > ====================

                They're not the same: H1 = xY and H2 = x

                > ===========
                >
                > > A.F :
                > >
                > > 1. I understand -x- as : unvoiced velar spirant ?
                > > The identification of H2 as unvoiced is falsifiable with absolute
                > certainty.
                >
                > In my earlier descriptions; I've said x() > G() / V_V and GY > y /
                > GW > v there. Even so, more ev. than what you have below makes it
                > likely Hittite had x in most positions; if it was G somewhere there's
                > no way of showing which is original,
                >
                > and I'm not interested in trying.
                > =============
                >
                > A.F :
                >
                > "not interesting in trying".
                >
                > I have my own convictions, but I am not AFRAID of looking at other
                people's data and hypotheses.

                I didn't say I was afraid. I don't feel there's much point in
                trying to figure out where h = x and h = G in a dead language in
                regards to determining whether the sound was originally voiced or
                voiceless in the proto-language.

                It makes no difference to any rules, and I already said I believe
                x>G in some positions in PIE anyway.

                > Why would this -s- not be added to every sort of stem? There are so
                > many different changes in each IE language I know it's not obvious at
                > first sight, but the ev. is certain even if complicated.
                >
                > =================
                >
                > A.F :
                >
                > Which instances do you have where -s- is not added ?
                >
                > this -s- in Greek seems to be pervading many items.

                Well, ending in -ma: magma, omma, sperma, okhe:ma, kri:ma, gno:ma,
                thema, stoma, thauma (and hundreds of others).


                On the other hand, those ending in -sma:

                *xakY+ 'sharp'
                *xakY-mYn.,x > Myc. aiksma- / Hom. aikhme: 'spearpoints'

                *derkY+ 'look (at)'
                *dr,kY-mYn., > darkhma / drakhme: / etc.

                *dexY+ 'bind'
                *dexY-mYn., > Skt da:man-; Greek desmos

                *xan-xY-mYn., > *ans.ma > *anths.ma > *ansthma > asthma

                *bhanY-x-mYn., > phasma / phantasma

                *bYhendh-x+ 'bind', bYhn,dhnYax+ (present)
                *bYh(e)ndh-(nY)x-mYn., > pe(i)sma / pasma 'cable, rope'

                A palatalized kY or xY (H1) > ks. or s.; probably x > s. only after
                it's palatalized by a preceding CY, though there's not much evidence
                either way.

                The preceding C or V also makes a difference; akY > aiks but rkY >
                arks; anY-x > an(t)s but unY-x > una; exY > es but ixY > i: (the pal.
                i preserves pal. xY). The major dif. is that a "prefers" not to touch
                a pal. C, so the feature Y is moved or changed when possible.

                > A.F
                >
                > I don't think this is irregular : all morphemes involved are good
                PIE :
                >
                > bh_H2 + nt + s + m
                >
                > The order is a bit unusual. You might expect -nt- to be last.
                >
                > As far as I am concerned, I don't think this unusual order is a
                "huge" problem.

                Do you mean you think *-nt- '(3pl)' is added to form a noun? Or is
                this some other affix?

                > > 3. I asked you to provide examples for glottalized m? :
                > > You dodge the question.
                >
                > I have no idea what ev. would convince you; since m? > m there's
                > nothing within PIE showing it clearly.
                >
                > ==================
                >
                > A.F
                >
                > You wrote "m? and m fused long before PIE"
                >
                > This contains more than one statement :
                >
                > 1. m? and m can be distinguished. (ok with me)
                >
                > 2 . they were fused in PIE. (I think this is false)
                >
                > 3. A language cognate to PIE has a different treatment. (I think
                it is true)
                >
                > 4. This different treatment can be showed to be "much" (= "long"=
                earlier than the split of PIE with its closest cognate languagues. (I
                think it is very difficult to prove this)
                >
                > If you wrote this "responsably", (I am confident you know what you
                do and say)
                >
                > you must have data to substantiate or hint that these statements
                make sense.

                You already gave some ev. for what you think was m?; I said it was
                Nm instead. How can I prove which it was? This ties into many
                different changes, such as the origin of the KW series in PIE, the
                order of separation between IE, Uralic, and Afro-Asiatic, whether a
                correspondence of m-w occurred from a change in PIE or later IE
                languages, etc.

                Not only am I unlikely to convince you, it would take a lot of time
                and effort which would involve discussion and theorizing about non-IE
                languages that aren't usually tolerated on this list.

                The most important ev. I think there is, which I already gave, is
                that Nm is more likely to denasalize to w than m? or any other nasal.
              • fournet.arnaud
                ... From: stlatos To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 12:11 AM Subject: [Courrier indésirable] Re: [tied] xY xy; x s; etc. (was:
                Message 7 of 7 , Oct 1, 2007
                   
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: stlatos
                  Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 12:11 AM
                  Subject: [Courrier indésirable] Re: [tied] xY>xy; x>s; etc. (was: Latin m>w, w>m)

                  > ==========
                  >
                  > A.F
                  >
                  > H2 is the same as H1 ?
                  >
                  > Strange !?
                  >
                  > I don't believe this.
                  > ============ ========

                  They're not the same: H1 = xY and H2 = x

                  ==========

                  A.F

                  I don't believe this.

                  H1 is H = pharyngal unvoiced.

                  I already gave the reasons to think one of H2 values : h2.7 is G voiced velar spirant. Kiluhepa = k_r_g_p

                  ========

                  Basque hel bite, hal feed, nourish

                  PIE H1ed to eat

                  Chinese Hod-an > Hodzan > tsHan : BeiJing : can1 to eat. 

                  c is to be read as a strongly aspirated affricate [tsx].

                  =========

                  Latin u:nion "onion"

                  Arabic Hasan "onion"

                  Chinese Hats-ong > tsHong : BeiJing cong1 "onion"

                  Hungarian hagyma < loanword from Turcic *hadzh-ma < Hats-

                   

                  There are plenty of other words to support that H1 = [H] pharyngal unvoiced.

                  No reason to think H1 ever was a compound x-y

                  in any language.
                  > ===========
                  >
                  > > A.F :
                  > >
                  > > 1. I understand -x- as : unvoiced velar spirant ?
                  > > The identification of H2 as unvoiced is falsifiable with absolute
                  > certainty.
                  >
                  > In my earlier descriptions; I've said x() > G() / V_V and GY > y /
                  > GW > v there. Even so, more ev. than what you have below makes it
                  > likely Hittite had x in most positions; if it was G somewhere there's
                  > no way of showing which is original,
                  >
                  > and I'm not interested in trying.
                  > ============ =
                  >
                  > A.F :
                  >
                  > "not interesting in trying".
                  >
                  > I have my own convictions, but I am not AFRAID of looking at other
                  people's data and hypotheses.

                  I didn't say I was afraid. I don't feel there's much point in
                  trying to figure out where h = x and h = G in a dead language in
                  regards to determining whether the sound was originally voiced or
                  voiceless in the proto-language.

                  It makes no difference to any rules, and I already said I believe
                  x>G in some positions in PIE anyway.

                  > Why would this -s- not be added to every sort of stem? There are so
                  > many different changes in each IE language I know it's not obvious at
                  > first sight, but the ev. is certain even if complicated.
                  >
                  > ============ =====
                  >
                  > A.F :
                  >
                  > Which instances do you have where -s- is not added ?
                  >
                  > this -s- in Greek seems to be pervading many items.

                  Well, ending in -ma: magma, omma, sperma, okhe:ma, kri:ma, gno:ma,
                  thema, stoma, thauma (and hundreds of others).

                  On the other hand, those ending in -sma:

                  *xakY+ 'sharp'
                  *xakY-mYn.,x > Myc. aiksma- / Hom. aikhme: 'spearpoints'

                  *derkY+ 'look (at)'
                  *dr,kY-mYn., > darkhma / drakhme: / etc.

                  *dexY+ 'bind'
                  *dexY-mYn., > Skt da:man-; Greek desmos

                  *xan-xY-mYn. , > *ans.ma > *anths.ma > *ansthma > asthma

                  *bhanY-x-mYn. , > phasma / phantasma

                  *bYhendh-x+ 'bind', bYhn,dhnYax+ (present)
                  *bYh(e)ndh-( nY)x-mYn. , > pe(i)sma / pasma 'cable, rope'

                  A palatalized kY or xY (H1) > ks. or s.; probably x > s. only after
                  it's palatalized by a preceding CY, though there's not much evidence
                  either way.

                  The preceding C or V also makes a difference; akY > aiks but rkY >
                  arks; anY-x > an(t)s but unY-x > una; exY > es but ixY > i: (the pal.
                  i preserves pal. xY). The major dif. is that a "prefers" not to touch
                  a pal. C, so the feature Y is moved or changed when possible.

                  > A.F
                  >
                  > I don't think this is irregular : all morphemes involved are good
                  PIE :
                  >
                  > bh_H2 + nt + s + m
                  >
                  > The order is a bit unusual. You might expect -nt- to be last.
                  >
                  > As far as I am concerned, I don't think this unusual order is a
                  "huge" problem.

                  Do you mean you think *-nt- '(3pl)' is added to form a noun? Or is
                  this some other affix?

                  ======

                  Present Participle -n-t- !?

                  ==============

                  > > 3. I asked you to provide examples for glottalized m? :
                  > > You dodge the question.
                  >
                  > I have no idea what ev. would convince you; since m? > m there's
                  > nothing within PIE showing it clearly.
                  >
                  > ============ ======
                  >
                  > A.F
                  >
                  > You wrote "m? and m fused long before PIE"
                  >
                  > This contains more than one statement :
                  >
                  > 1. m? and m can be distinguished. (ok with me)
                  >
                  > 2 . they were fused in PIE. (I think this is false)
                  >
                  > 3. A language cognate to PIE has a different treatment. (I think
                  it is true)
                  >
                  > 4. This different treatment can be showed to be "much" (= "long"=
                  earlier than the split of PIE with its closest cognate languagues. (I
                  think it is very difficult to prove this)
                  >
                  > If you wrote this "responsably" , (I am confident you know what you
                  do and say)
                  >
                  > you must have data to substantiate or hint that these statements
                  make sense.

                  You already gave some ev. for what you think was m?; I said it was
                  Nm instead. How can I prove which it was? This ties into many
                  different changes, such as the origin of the KW series in PIE, the
                  order of separation between IE, Uralic, and Afro-Asiatic, whether a
                  correspondence of m-w occurred from a change in PIE or later IE
                  languages, etc.

                  Not only am I unlikely to convince you, it would take a lot of time
                  and effort which would involve discussion and theorizing about non-IE
                  languages that aren't usually tolerated on this list.

                  ==============

                  A.F

                  You are a strange man.

                  You write your evidence in a way that makes it unreadable.

                  You say something (a whole bag of statements), then you refuse to provide evidence for it.

                  Now, you make this statement claiming "you are unlikely to convince me" (a strange mix between an insult to me and admission of failure on your side !?),   and that you don't have the right to defend your point of view. (I don't believe this is prohibited)

                  All this is a screen of smoke and sissy-sassy.

                  This forum is not about playing poker. You have cards or you don't.

                  ============


                  The most important ev. I think there is, which I already gave, is
                  that Nm is more likely to denasalize to w than m? or any other nasal.

                  ========

                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.