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

PNC Playland - Was:Re: [tied] Pat's ProtoWorld Playland

Expand Messages
  • erobert52@aol.com
    In a message dated 01/03/01 11:18:00 GMT Standard Time, glengordon01@hotmail.com writes: [Talking about Sergei Starostin, not Pat Ryan] ... NEC ... To be fair,
    Message 1 of 2 , Mar 2, 2001
      In a message dated 01/03/01 11:18:00 GMT Standard Time,
      glengordon01@... writes:

      [Talking about Sergei Starostin, not Pat Ryan]
      > I abhor his loose reconstructive method. I mean, every language I know of
      > has a clear set of phonemes, a phonological set. Starostin however doesn't
      > demonstrate that he understands this simple concept. He clings to a myriad
      > of snazzy phonetic symbols more than a junky craves heroine. He certainly
      > doesn't lay out explanations readily to help improve clarity and
      > credibility. Perhaps he is too afraid to expose the truth - that NWC and
      > are not directly related. Why, that would definitely undermine all his
      > precious work and he surely couldn't have that.

      To be fair, there are a lot of consonants to account for in
      Daghestanian (and NWC, of course). Nakh is *much* simpler. He says
      reconstructing PEC was the difficult bit and then NWC just fitted in.
      I find this hard to believe. Not only are there just not enough
      plausible isoglosses, NWC just feels so different phonotactically even
      though there are a lot of all these bizarre consonants in common. I
      mean, how many consonants can you actually get? The fact that Nakh is
      so much simpler consonant-wise makes me suspect there is something
      non-genetic going on here, like language contact or creolisation
      compared to the rest of NEC.

      > - even some of the pronouns appear borrowed.

      I agree.

      > From my own inspection, it would look like NWC and NEC were side-by-side
      > about 10,000 years until present (NWC traditionally to the north and NEC
      > traditionally to the south). This is plenty of time for them to absorb
      > idiosyncracies from each other but not long enough to erase the fact that
      > the two families are fundamentally different grammatically because of a
      > previous 10,000 years of seperation before that. NWC has a reduced set of
      > vowels while NEC goes overboard with them. What's more, I find NWC shares
      > closer affinities with SinoTibetan more than anything. If true, this gives
      > us a plausible pattern of movement. NWC from Central Asia; NEC from East
      > Anatolia, all occuring around 8000 to 7000 BCE. Case solved, the gLeNny
      > way.

      Certainly Johanna Nichols says she thinks the Nakhs arrived at their
      current position from the south west. BTW, where and when do the
      Kartvelians fit in to your model for the Caucasus?

      > I don't know whether NEC should be
      > thrown away or not.

      Absolutely not. I think there can be no doubt about NEC, including
      Nakh. I just think that the fact that the variation in divergence of
      different aspects of Nakh from the rest of NEC needs an explanation.
      One explanation could be a substrate.

      > Can you demonstrate these "exotic" bits found in Etruscan? I suspect that
      > you're seeing a mirage. I hope you won't do something silly like mention
      > Etruscan /ci/ and desperately connect it with Hurrian /kig/.

      Well, yes, I'm afraid I am. And I'm going to link that with Nakh /qo/.
      Yes, the consonants are slightly different points of articulation, but
      of course, /k/ occurs in very few native Nakh words, and we can't
      really be sure of the exact Etruscan pronunciation anyway. And before
      you claim that the vowel doesn't fit, let's remember that Nakh is full
      of ablauts and umlauts. See, for instance, the alternations between
      front and back vowels in the paradigm for 'two', for instance, while
      for 3 we do have /qea/ 'of 3'.

      Hurrian and Nakh /shi/, '2' fit quite nicely with one another, but
      Etruscan /sal/ doesn't so well. Maybe if Proto-Tyrrhenian was *sai it
      might. Another possibility is Etruscan borrowing from Georgian /cali/
      'one of a natural pair', but that might be a bit far fetched.

      The Nakh for '1' /c'h'a/ is probably (unlike most of the numerals in
      Nakh) clearly related to the Daghestanian. But a cognate with Etruscan
      /thu/ may survive in Batsbi /dui?re/ 'first'. And then of course there
      is Etruscan /max/ and Nakh /pxi/ for '5'. The Nakh for '4' doesn't
      really fit, but interestingly, it's the only numeral that uses class

      To stick to numerals, there are morphological parallels, too. To take
      '3' as an example again, we have Etruscan /cealx/ '30', Nakh
      /qo'algha/ '3rd'. Folk etymologies derive this from the Nakh for '3
      said', which is very similar, and which might actually fit in Etruscan
      as well as a derivation.

      Then we have the parallel Etruscan ciz/cizi, Nakh qu'uz/quuza '3
      times'. The pair in Nakh is without/with focus gemination, even though
      the consonant isn't actually geminated in this case. Exactly the same
      thing might be going on in the Etruscan pair.

      Finally, '19' is formed subtractively in Nakh, just as it is in
      Etruscan (and Latin).

      And that's only the numbers ...

      Ed. Robertson
    • Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
      On Fri, 2 Mar 2001 04:45:56 EST, erobert52@aol.com wrote: [stuff on N. Caucasian numerals] I have no opinion on Dene-Sino-Caucasian , but the North (West &
      Message 2 of 2 , Mar 5, 2001
        On Fri, 2 Mar 2001 04:45:56 EST, erobert52@... wrote:

        [stuff on N. Caucasian numerals]

        I have no opinion on "Dene-Sino-Caucasian", but the North (West &
        East) Caucasian numerals show some striking similarities with the
        Tibet-Burman ones. We have:

        1. Tib. g-cig (*g-tik) :: Chechen cHa', Avar co, Lak ca, Lezgi sa-,
        Kabardian za

        2. Tib. g-nyis (*g-nis) :: [no obvious NEC/NWC cognates]

        3. Tib. g-sum (*g-sum, PSin. *sam) :: Lak s^an, Kab. s'a

        4. Tib. b-zhi (*b-li:) :: Kab. pLi

        5. Tib. l-nga (*l-nga) :: [no obvious NEC/NWC cognates]

        6. Tib. d-rug (*d-ruk) :: Lak ryax, Lezgi rugu- (Chech. yalx & Avar
        ank.L. probably related too)

        7. Tib. b-dun (? PTB *s-nis) :: [no obvious NEC/NWC cognates]

        8. Tib. br-gyad (*br-giat) :: Chech. barh, Lak myay, Lezgi müz^ü, Avar

        9. Tib. d-gu (*d-ku:) :: Lezgi k.ü, Kab. bGu, Lak urc^., Avar ic^.,
        Chech. iss

        10. Tib. b-cu (? PTB *g-kiap) :: Lezgi c.u-, Lak ac., Avar anc.,
        Chech. itt

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