zompist bboard

It still is, as the syllabification is different: sɪŋ.ər against ə.hɛd

The only "evidence" for h and ŋ being the same phoneme is their complementary distribution. But obviously they aren't the same phoneme, so usually people insist on "phonetic similarity". This probably isn't the right approach either, so I agree with your idea, that native speaker intuition is a bett...

Except "*bʰrēt-" isn't a root. breath < *brēþiz is a derivative of *brēaną "to fume, smell" < *bʰreh₁-.

I'm sorry, this dismissal is completely laughable. Roots ending in *t are not "rare", there are only slightly fewer of them than there are ending in *ḱ. And then there is no "past tense marker". It's wholly unsurprising that *r should mostly appear after stops, given that a) there's a known avoidanc...

That's hardly an explanation. How does that account for the lack of *bʰ...t roots? And why the overrepresentation of *bʰr-, when it only accounts for about a quarter of all roots beginning with *bʰ in total?

Howl wrote:exotic glottalic or implosive stops

Ejectives, implosives, or glottalised stops are not "exotic", whatever that's supposed to mean.

Moreover, I don't see how your system is at all "sane", or even necessary.

Salmoneus wrote:The [item] is as visible as required by regulations

The actual intended meaning would require additional commas...

Could you elaborate?

But I thought you supported the Cao Bang theory (the one with the implosives), and in that theory the system is the standard *t *d *dʰ at the time PIE splits up (but *t *ɗ *d in pre-PIE). That's right. Edit: I just found and read the powerpoint outlining the theory, and there's a lot there I didn't...

There are no "missing" voiceless aspirates. The notion that the system *t *d *dʰ is missing anything is a misconception based on the misleading notation used for the breathy-voiced stops, which is a Sanskritism.

Well-put.

And if we're enumerating fricatives, here's my set:
Coronal *s
Velar *h₂ (/x/)
Labio-velar *h₂w (/xʷ/) since I think Anatolian preserves the original situation
Post-velar *h₃ (/χ/)
Glottal *h₁ (/h/), which may also contain an older *f if we want symmetry

Here, Germanic points at voiced fricatives, and so does Italic, which seems to just have devoiced the fricatives in initial position. In medial position, they would have first remained voiced, merging with the voiced stops in Latin, and either devoicing or staying what they are but written with the...

yta smawug ġərśit guḥəm na qlan nan lamkən
Smaug gives a bad name to the rest of us dragons.

Are you really so caught up in your ruts that you think that those are the only two possibilities So far as I see it, the options are: breathy-voiced stops, ejectives, pre-glottalised stops, implosives. The middle two are certainly "glottalic", and implosives could well be lumped in there. I'll gra...

Just an enthusiastic amateur here too, WE! But then, these sorts of discussions are enlightening because they bring up problems you don't think of.

To clarify what I mean by being unsure of his theory - I don't know if it's correct ; I know exactly what he claims, having read his papers on it several times. As I recall, the main piece of evidence for *h₄ is Hittite alpas "cloud", claimed to be cognate with Latin albus "white" from *h₄elbʰos, bu...

*h₄ is pretty ad-hoc as well, since it only finds support in Anatolian, but even that support can be explained away.

2. The token frequencies seem to be wrong: one would expect *h1 to be the most common and *h2 the rarest. But *h2 is even more common than *h1! There's a blindingly simple solution to this: match up *h₂ with the front-velar series instead of the back-velar series. Of course, that leaves *h₁ danglin...

tərgac wa, žal.
You wound me, Jal

Really? You think that reconstruction's on firm enough ground to serve as an adequate counterexample? While you may be utterly infatuated with the glottalic theory, it's diachronically simpler for at least the final phase of PIE to have in fact had breathy-voiced stops in at least some dialects. Al...

What Astraios said. All you're doing is shouting very loudly, against people who are actually trying to support their point.

Stupid question: does loss of syllabic resonants apply before or after loss of laryngeals? If you have a *VHRC sequence, the R would be reconstructed as syllabic for PIE, but what happens with the reflexes? As far as I know the development is specific to each branch, since neither laryngeals nor sy...

Io wrote:The latest Skype rape-upgrade seems to have put off a lot of people judging by the amount of users I see online now, where did everybody migrate to?

The two major services I know of are Discord (my personal favourite since it's more like how Skype used to be) and Telegram.

Only very vaguely.

Even if the Semitic correspondence points to *š, is it not possible that there was an irregular shift to *ś somewhere down the line to Hebrew, which was in fact a lateral fricative? It would be a much tidier explanation.

Have you tried analysing it with e.g. Praat?