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

Re: [tied] Re: [pieml] Labiovelars versus Palatals + Labiovelar Approximant

Expand Messages
  • congotre o
    It was interesting to see these arguments. I am a novice to many of these details, but I want advice on something rudimentary. I met a guy from Kurgan, Russia
    Message 1 of 154 , Nov 1, 2008

      It was interesting to see these arguments.
      I am a novice to many of these details, but I want advice on something rudimentary.
      I met a guy from Kurgan, Russia where some say this whole language family 'originated.'

      I started trying to explain this whole idea of a common ancestral language, and started off with the word he used 'sto', Russian for 100, and I explained to a group (of math students) its roots and relation to 'hund' of hundred, following that centum/satem argument from introductions to etymology.    I explained the detail, but it wasn't impressive, because it wasn't obvious to others that these relationships were not accidental.     On the other hand, if you use common words like 'mother', some assume that similar words in faraway places are an accident, or a more recently globalized word.

      What kind of examples will bring the average person uninformed of p-IE ancestry to give it any attention, since common words like 'dog' and 'perro', as you said here, are from sidestreams?

      I know this jumps the whole conversation backwards, but for me, in the real world, it's hard to strike up a conversation where I can make the argument about common ancestry believable at all.

      From: Piotr Gasiorowski
      Sent: Friday, October 31, 2008 1:04 PM
      To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [tied] Re: [pieml] Labiovelars versus Palatals + Labiovelar Approximant

      On 2008-10-31 16:08, Arnaud Fournet wrote:

      > When unstressed, all vowels disappear in PIE stage,
      > so kuH2on- when stressed on kuH2on-""i
      > becomes kH2n-""i > kan-""i
      > U disappears like all other vowels do.
      > No big deal.

      Well, it didn't disappear in Greek, Sanskrit, Avestan, Lithuanian,
      Latvian or Irish. They all show clear reflexes of *k^un-, not *k^&2n-
      The PIE zero-grade of *-uh2V- is *-uh2-, not *-h2-.

      > What about Latin can-is ?
      > You still have not explained how Latin fits here.

      It doesn't. I'm under no obligation to include <canis>. It doesn't match
      the other forms, so it's probably something else, e.g. a derivative of
      the root *kan- 'young, little' (used of humans and animals), cf. Skt.
      k�ni:yas- 'younger'/kanis. t.H�- 'the youngest', kani:- 'girl', Gk.
      kain�s and Lat. recens 'new, recent', MIr. cano 'wolf cub', etc.

      > You little cheap cheater...

      Mind your step, Arnaud.

      > You can't choose which data you want to explain
      > and which data you want to discard
      > because of your preconceived dogmas.

      I _can_ choose what I want to include, based on common sense. If I don't
      include OCS pIsU, Eng. dog or Sp. perro, is that dogmatic of me? You
      include <canis>, reconstruct the root as *kuh2on-, and what do you gain?
      One problem remains in Latin (no matter how loudly you shout, this *u
      should not be allowed to disappear; PIE *u does not disappear in the
      zero grade) and plenty of problems arise in several other branches: in
      Greek and Tocharian, *uh2 would have given *wa:, in Indo-Iranian and
      Celtic, long *u:, in Baltic, an acuted long *u:, etc. Your
      reconstruction solves one problem (Lat. /a/ in <canis>) but screws up
      everything else. Please don't ask me to take it seriously.

      > it ruins the premice
      > this word is PIE stage
      > I suppose you understand that.
      > It makes a big difference.

      It can be reconstructed confidently for non-Anatolian IE, so it has at
      least the same status as a verb like *bHer-e/o-. Whether there was a
      cognate of *h1ek^wos in Anatolian or not depends on what one makes of
      the Luwian data. Melchert (1987) has a rather solid case for reading the
      HLuw. 'horse' word as <azu(wa)->, distinct from what we find in the
      Hittite horse-training manual (i.e., from the actual Mitanni-Indic
      loan). And if <azu(wa)-> is native, why not Lyc. esbe?

      > The problem is the forms that don't match the others.

      Like what?

      Piotr

    • Arnaud Fournet
      ... From: Piotr Gasiorowski To: Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 11:14 PM Subject: Re: [tied] Re: [pieml]
      Message 154 of 154 , Nov 12, 2008
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...>
        To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 11:14 PM
        Subject: Re: [tied] Re: [pieml] Labiovelars versus Palatals + Labiovelar
        Approximant


        >
        > On 2008-11-11 22:05, Arnaud Fournet wrote:
        >
        >> Example :
        >> *puH1 > pH1u
        >> Greek phusa, Armenian phukh, Indic phut-
        >> (But Basque buhatu, Uralic puj-)
        >
        > Pff! Don't forget Eng. phew and (Winnie the) Pooh.
        ============
        Phew : used to express relief, fatigue, surprise or disgust.
        I can't see the connection with *puh1
        Please explain.
        A.
        ==============

        An obviously
        > onomatopoeic root is of little use in comparative analyses, even if
        > something like *p(H)uh1- is vaguely reconstructible for PIE. It is good
        > linguistic practice to disqualify such forms as evidence if you're
        > trying to establish a sound correspondence.
        ==========
        Onomatopeic words very often end up working like standard words.
        Pigeon does not look onomatopeic but pipio does.
        Anyway about everything is somehow onomatopeic.
        *Gwow cow is, and H2ak "stone" as well.

        A.
        ========

        But if you insist on using
        > it, the Armenian 'wind' word is really <pHowkH> (< *pHuh1-ko-, according
        > to Olsen), and the Greek 'breath' word is <pHûsa>, both reflecting
        > _long_ *u:, and therefore _not_ derivable from *ph1u-.
        >
        ============
        Lejeune writes Armenian as being phukh
        which is why I wrote it that way.
        Anyway pHowkH can be from *ph1u > *PH_u > *phow-
        the vowel u is reinterpreted as w and a vowel o is inserted.
        standard IE morphonology.

        Greek is not attested in Ionian
        it's a LW from some other dialect/language
        for that matter, the exact prototype cannot be stated.
        Anyway, lenghthening of u is standard procedure in Greek.
        Cf. verbs in nu(:)-mi

        A.
        ======

        >> I think my new proposal works.
        >> => Your turn.
        >
        > You haven't finished your turn. Your proposal "works" with two examples
        > and a rule designed specifically to explain their different behaviour.
        > There's nothing to reject here.
        > > Piotr
        =======
        Currently three
        *puH1
        *kuH2-on
        *bhuH1

        It's interesting to note that *tu(H) "you" is -th-a in perfect.

        You have not explained if
        k^H and kH can be distinguished ?

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