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

Re: Initial d/t alternation

Expand Messages
  • tgpedersen@hotmail.com
    ... proposed). ... *d-/*t-? ... consonants (3 vs. 4). But anyway!) ... Lubotsky s rather controversial hysterodynamic scheme I fail to see what *dh2-en-
    Message 1 of 3 , Mar 2, 2001
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: tgpedersen@h...
      > To: cybalist@y...
      > Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 8:19 PM
      > Subject: [tied] Initial d/t alternation
      >
      >
      > Nom. *deH2-n- > *da:n-
      > Acc. *dH2-en- > *d'an- > *tan-
      > Gen. *dH2-n-
      >
      > where /d/ is plain (non-aspirated, non-glottalic, as Kordtland
      proposed).
      > Or, if an initial *s-/*t- alternation (in Greek) is OK, why isn't
      *d-/*t-?
      > (I know it doesn't quite follow the pattern, due to the number of
      consonants (3 vs. 4). But anyway!)
      > Hope this is "definite" enough. Feel free to take it apart.
      >
      >
      > Torsten

      --- In cybalist@y..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@i...> wrote:
      > There isn't much to take apart yet. In this application of
      Lubotsky's rather controversial hysterodynamic scheme I fail to see
      what *dh2-en- > *d'an- > *tan- is supposed to stand for. The
      alternation t-/s- in Greek reflects the different syllabification of
      *u/*w (*tu-/*tw- > tu-/s-). But how does *dh2- become *t-, and what
      for? (I mean, what particular facts do you want to explain in this
      way?). Knowing your patriotic preoccupation with Dan-, I suppose you
      really meant to write *dh2en- > *dHan- > Germanic *dan-. What does
      *deh2-n- mean? What's the fully inflected form of each case, by the
      way, and what IE reflexes do they account for?
      >
      > Piotr
      >

      It is kind of you to try to correct my mistakes, but I actually meant
      what I wrote. However, perhaps I should have written /t'/ instead
      of /d'/, using the standard glottalic notation. I wrote /d'/ to stand
      for "plain non-glottalized non-aspirated stop + glottalization"
      (which then becomes a glottalized stop) starting from /d/ as plain
      non-glottalized non-aspirated, as Kordtland proposed plus a laryngeal
      glottalizing the stop before it.

      You are of course right that I'm trying to get a *d- out of the
      wringer, but I was proposing doing it in a much more ambitious way. I
      intended to replace the first Germanic sound shift with a version of
      my own.

      But in order to give some background on my thought processes (or what
      tries to pass as such) I suggest you read

      http://www.angelfire.com/rant/tgpedersen/Shibbolethisation.html

      So, given those ideas, here's what I propose:

      Roots of the form *D-H- (D any plain stop, H any(?) laryngeal in PIE)
      will give rise to paradigms with Nom *T'-/Acc *D- (T' being the
      homorganic glottalized stop).

      Most IE languages generalize *D-. ProtoGermanic generalizes *T'-
      (while deglottalizing them).

      Now we have a phonetic (not just single-word, as the
      original "shibboleth") shibboleth *d-/*t-, between PGmc and
      neighboring languages. Presumably the Skiri and the Bastarni couldn't
      stand each other, so we might have had Skiri *d- and Bastarni *t-,
      but it might have been the other way around.

      Now they (or at least the *T- speakers) generalize this difference to
      all occurrences of /*D/ in their language. This, to outsiders, looks
      exactly like /D/->/T/ (Note!: D means [b, d, g], T means [p, t, k]).
      But they miss some. Cf. Lat Nom. major -> French maire, Acc majore- -
      > French majeur, an example of a nominative survivng a purge of Latin
      nominatives in the Romance languages.

      Where does this leave us within PIE? Well:

      Names of gods and people from the PIE Nom. *da:n-

      Names of places (rivers!) from the PIE Acc. *tan-

      BTW Danish <Tannis bugt>, the bay west of the Skagen peninsula.
      My "NuDansk Ordbog" says it probably contains -næs, 'naze, peninsula'
      but is otherwise obscure.

      It also has "danne-, in composites the same as dane-". This could be
      a mixed form, showing influence of *tann-.

      If you find any faults in this, please don't hesitate to correct them.

      Torsten
    • tgpedersen@hotmail.com
      Sorry, correction!! ... of ... you ... meant ... stand ... laryngeal ... I ... of ... what ... http://www.angelfire.com/rant/tgpedersen/Shibbolethisation.html
      Message 2 of 3 , Mar 2, 2001
        Sorry, correction!!

        --- In cybalist@y..., tgpedersen@h... wrote:
        > >
        > > ----- Original Message -----
        > > From: tgpedersen@h...
        > > To: cybalist@y...
        > > Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 8:19 PM
        > > Subject: [tied] Initial d/t alternation
        > >
        > >
        > > Nom. *deH2-n- > *da:n-
        > > Acc. *dH2-en- > *d'an- > *tan-
        > > Gen. *dH2-n-
        > >
        > > where /d/ is plain (non-aspirated, non-glottalic, as Kordtland
        > proposed).
        > > Or, if an initial *s-/*t- alternation (in Greek) is OK, why isn't
        > *d-/*t-?
        > > (I know it doesn't quite follow the pattern, due to the number of
        > consonants (3 vs. 4). But anyway!)
        > > Hope this is "definite" enough. Feel free to take it apart.
        > >
        > >
        > > Torsten
        >
        > --- In cybalist@y..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@i...> wrote:
        > > There isn't much to take apart yet. In this application of
        > Lubotsky's rather controversial hysterodynamic scheme I fail to see
        > what *dh2-en- > *d'an- > *tan- is supposed to stand for. The
        > alternation t-/s- in Greek reflects the different syllabification
        of
        > *u/*w (*tu-/*tw- > tu-/s-). But how does *dh2- become *t-, and what
        > for? (I mean, what particular facts do you want to explain in this
        > way?). Knowing your patriotic preoccupation with Dan-, I suppose
        you
        > really meant to write *dh2en- > *dHan- > Germanic *dan-. What does
        > *deh2-n- mean? What's the fully inflected form of each case, by the
        > way, and what IE reflexes do they account for?
        > >
        > > Piotr
        > >
        >
        > It is kind of you to try to correct my mistakes, but I actually
        meant
        > what I wrote. However, perhaps I should have written /t'/ instead
        > of /d'/, using the standard glottalic notation. I wrote /d'/ to
        stand
        > for "plain non-glottalized non-aspirated stop + glottalization"
        > (which then becomes a glottalized stop) starting from /d/ as plain
        > non-glottalized non-aspirated, as Kordtland proposed plus a
        laryngeal
        > glottalizing the stop before it.
        >
        > You are of course right that I'm trying to get a *d- out of the
        > wringer, but I was proposing doing it in a much more ambitious way.
        I
        > intended to replace the first Germanic sound shift with a version
        of
        > my own.
        >
        > But in order to give some background on my thought processes (or
        what
        > tries to pass as such) I suggest you read
        >
        >
        http://www.angelfire.com/rant/tgpedersen/Shibbolethisation.html
        >
        > So, given those ideas, here's what I propose:
        >
        > Roots of the form *D-H- (D any plain stop, H any(?) laryngeal in
        PIE)
        > will give rise to paradigms with Nom *D-/Acc *T'- (T' being the
        > homorganic glottalized stop).
        >
        > Most IE languages generalize *D-. ProtoGermanic generalizes *T'-
        > (while deglottalizing them).
        >
        > Now we have a phonetic (not just single-word, as the
        > original "shibboleth") shibboleth *d-/*t-, between PGmc and
        > neighboring languages. Presumably the Skiri and the Bastarni
        couldn't
        > stand each other, so we might have had Skiri *d- and Bastarni *t-,
        > but it might have been the other way around.
        >
        > Now they (or at least the *T- speakers) generalize this difference
        to
        > all occurrences of /*D/ in their language. This, to outsiders,
        looks
        > exactly like /D/->/T/ (Note!: D means [b, d, g], T means [p, t, k]).
        > But they miss some. Cf. Lat Nom. major -> French maire, Acc majore-
        -
        > > French majeur, an example of a nominative survivng a purge of
        Latin
        > nominatives in the Romance languages.
        >
        > Where does this leave us within PIE? Well:
        >
        > Names of gods and people from the PIE Nom. *da:n-
        >
        > Names of places (rivers!) from the PIE Acc. *tan-
        >
        > BTW Danish <Tannis bugt>, the bay west of the Skagen peninsula.
        > My "NuDansk Ordbog" says it probably contains -næs, 'naze,
        peninsula'
        > but is otherwise obscure.
        >
        > It also has "danne-, in composites the same as dane-". This could
        be
        > a mixed form, showing influence of *tann-.
        >
        > If you find any faults in this, please don't hesitate to correct
        them.
        >
        > Torsten
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.