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

Re: [tied] Scythian tribal names: Paralatai

Expand Messages
  • stlatos
    ... I m not the one who went to the trouble of eliminating *m: Indo-Iranian *as^(m)an- stone, sky (as dome/vault of stone) to Skt as (m)an-, Av asan-,
    Message 1 of 49 , Jul 4, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "david_russell_watson" <liberty@...>
      wrote:
      >
      > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <stlatos@> wrote:

      > > > > The changes involve n > n. > N after a velar which returns
      > > > > to n much later in most IE (but not if nasal dissimilation
      > > > > occurred first like Latin -go:(n-) or Iranian *xakYmnixYno-
      > > > > > *akYm.n.iyn.o- > *akYm.NayNo- > *asagaina- 'of stone').
      >
      > I don't recognize *asagaina-, and it would have been nice,
      > and normal practice, to indicate its language, but, if it's
      > indeed derived from *h2ek^-, it's likely better attributed
      > to *h2ek^- with some suffix other than *-men-, saving us the
      > bother of such gyrations as you require to eliminate it in
      > the end.


      I'm not the one who went to the trouble of eliminating *m:
      Indo-Iranian *as^(m)an- 'stone, sky (as dome/vault of stone)' to Skt
      as'(m)an-, Av asan-, asman-. The der. from *H2ak^m(o)n- (my
      *xakYmo:n.) is already standard. It probably came from kmn > km,n
      before a vowel, or something similar, with m, > a regularly.


      > Writing of normal practice, I must add that I don't myself
      > appreciate having to address the likes of "xakYmnixYno-",
      > "akYm.n.iyn.o-", and "akYm.NayNo-". These are to me no more
      > than excerpts from an interesting con-lang of your invention
      > which happens to somewhat resemble Proto-Indo-European.
      >
      > > If there was no intermediate N stage, why *asagaina- instead of
      > > *asanín(a)-, etc?
      >
      > Tell me your basis for *asagaina- and possibly I can answer,
      > though, as I say, I very much doubt that the suffix *-men-
      > is involved.


      As I wrote before (an excerpt):

      --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <stlatos@...> wrote:

      > I'd also say NN combos, including those in later analogical
      > creations, remained. Neither -mn.V- nor -mYn.V- was reduced in PIE.
      > Various branches had some changes including:
      >
      > *dhéxYmó(n.)+ /
      > *dhóxYmó(n.)+ '(a) placing on/together, heap'
      > *dhóxYmn.ko+, -ik+, -id+ 'cord, rope' > fu:nis, tho:miGx
      >
      > *kn.,mYn., > *kUmen
      > *kn.,mYn.ixYn.o+ 'made of blocks of wood' > Slavic
      > *kUni:go+ 'book, etc.'
      >
      > *xakYmo:n.
      > *xakYmn.ixYn.o+ 'made of stone' > OP
      > atha(n)gaina-

      The Old Persian form is fairly clearly related to asan- instead of
      just the stem *as- (with optional n by analogy with the noun *athan-).
      The creation of an adj. (of composition, etc.) with *-ixYn.o- > L
      -i:nus, Skt -in(a)-, etc., is common, but no other *-gaina- or
      anything similar exists. The g-n and g-n in isolated unanalyzable
      forms in L, Slavic, and Iranian is grounds for assuming a change of X
      > g (N-n > g-n and n-N > n-g are therefore the best fit, since n is
      seen in the base and the suffix).
    • stlatos
      To try to clarify my problems with recent objections I ve included ... Brian says: principle1 not principle? ... Brian says: principle1 not principle meaning
      Message 49 of 49 , Jul 10, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        To try to clarify my problems with recent objections I've included
        excerpts:


        --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...> wrote:
        >
        > At 1:04:13 AM on Saturday, July 5, 2008, stlatos wrote:
        >
        > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "david_russell_watson"
        > > <liberty@> wrote:

        > >> 'Aptya'/'Athwiya' is indeed an irregular correspondence,
        > >> but one on obviously much more solid ground than
        > >> 'Thraetaona'/ 'Targitaus'.
        >
        > > Yes, of course, but the principle that changes might occur
        > > in only one word in a language and still be valid and
        > > identifiable must be used for both.
        >
        > It is an empirical fact that irregular changes occur, not a
        > matter of principle, and there is no guarantee that isolated
        > instances can even be identified, let alone demonstrated.


        Brian says:

        principle1 not principle?


        --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...> wrote:

        > stlatos
        >> Are you objecting to my use of the word "principle"?

        > I'm objecting to the notion that any principle is involved.
        > Obviously this entails objecting to the use of the word, but
        > my objection goes well beyond that.


        Brian says:

        principle1 not principle

        meaning of "principle" important

        other objections (more) important


        --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...> wrote:
        >
        > At 7:45:23 PM on Sunday, July 6, 2008, stlatos wrote:
        > > What do you mean? You said it was a "fact" that irregular
        > > changes occurred, so why isn't it a principle that such
        > > changes account for some correspondences?
        >
        > In what way is that assertion a *principle*? You can't use
        > it to do anything, for Pete's sake. But don't waste time
        > getting hung up on the word. The real point is that this
        > fact does not in itself justify claiming that such an
        > irregular relationship obtains between <Thraetaona> and
        > <Targitaus>; for that you need something like the
        > methodological principle to which I originally objected.


        Brian says:

        principle2 not principle

        [methodological principle to which I originally objected] is principle

        meaning of "principle" not important

        whether relationship obtains between <Thraetaona> and <Targitaus>
        important


        --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <stlatos@...> wrote:
        >
        > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@> wrote:

        > > As I suspected, you have not understood what I've been
        > > trying to say. I was never particularly interested in this
        > > particular correspondence: it was merely a convenient
        > > occasion to point out what I consider to be a very serious
        > > flaw in your methodology. I am not objecting strenuously to
        > > any particular reconstruction but rather to your whole
        > > approach, and I thought that I'd made that rather clear.
        > > Evidently I was mistaken, but I'm afraid that I haven't the
        > > time to pursue it further, especially in the face of what
        > > looks like a real blind spot.
        > > (As it happens, I still think that calling the existence of
        > > irregular correspondences a principle is something of a
        > > misuse of the word,
        > > The actual principle that you have in mind here is
        > > apparently that types of correspondences that are known to
        > > exist cannot a priori be excluded from consideration.)


        Brian says:

        principle2 not principle (misuse)?

        principle3 is principle

        meaning of "principle" not important

        whether relationship obtains between <Thraetaona> and <Targitaus> not
        important


        I hope this makes clear any confusion that might have made me defend
        anything other than the totality of my methodology in general terms.

        The very first thing he objects to was p1; to my question about
        particulars he said, "I'm objecting to the notion that any principle
        is involved." But in the next message, "for that you need something
        like the methodological principle to which I originally objected." I
        suppose he means the one he made up but said I followed (the second
        objection, not original, unless he meant p1). Later, "The actual
        principle that you have in mind here is apparently that types of
        correspondences that are known to exist cannot a priori be excluded
        from consideration." So perhaps p1 is not (actually?) the principle I
        follow, only the ones he makes up or restates are? How can he believe
        in p3 but object to a specific subset like "that changes might occur
        in only one word in a language and still be valid and identifiable"?

        He seems to say I need a rule that possible correspondences are
        always real in order to say that this particular possibility is real,
        which is ridiculous. I can't prove it based only on a principle, but
        that isn't unusual.

        The defense of any of this, whether saying it's true or saying it's
        a principle, is later said to be irrelevant by him.


        And though I've said nothing about Thraetaona- and Targitaos to him
        yet (the point of the thread which he began responding to), he brings
        it up:

        > In what way is that assertion a *principle*? You can't use
        > it to do anything, for Pete's sake. But don't waste time
        > getting hung up on the word. The real point is that this
        > fact does not in itself justify claiming that such an
        > irregular relationship obtains between <Thraetaona> and
        > <Targitaus>; for that you need something like the
        > methodological principle to which I originally objected.

        Though he later says "I am not objecting strenuously to any
        particular reconstruction but rather to your whole approach, and I
        thought that I'd made that rather clear." as if I've done something
        wrong, against the point, motivated by my misunderstanding or blind
        spot, etc., in using any of these words as examples to defend my work.

        He says, "The real point is that this fact does not in itself
        justify claiming that such an irregular relationship obtains" but when
        I say I never claimed the fact justified it by itself, only that it
        left open the possibility, he said, "I know." How am I to interpret this?
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.