zompist bboard

I'll reiterate that this paper does contain good examples of PIE *D ~ PU *N that can't be explained as "nasalisation".

I have written like that on occasion, but the phrase is highly specific.

What the hell, Sal?

I refuse to believe that Indo-Uralic by itself, alone, without any relation to other language families, is true. Nobody's claiming this. To think that Indo-Uralic just appeared by magic is nonsensical. without including at least Altaic as well. You speak as if Altaic is a proven family. Realistical...

While we're discussing the "name" word, it's interesting to note that Tocharian has *ñem, pointing to a "post-laryngealistic" *nēmn̥, which is a closer match for Uralic *nimi.

Late PIE as reconstructible also has *a ~ *ā ablaut (*sal- ~ : *sāl- 'salt', etc.; note that Sanskrit salila '(flowing) water' cannot be from either of *sə₂l- or *saHl-; though full grade *sh₂al- would work). This could mean that some rounds of lengthening were simply later than laryngeal coloring....

WeepingElf wrote:an (otherwise unknown) root *h₃neh₃-, perhaps 'to call'

Kloekhorst believes that the root can also be found in Hittite ḫannai "to sue, judge" < *h₃eh₃noh₃- (i.e. "call to court") and Greek ὀνομαι "to scold, blame, insult" < *h₃n̥h₃- (i.e. "call names")

Realistically, Uralic need not tell us very much - assuming a shift ejective > implosive > voiced stop, there's no reason to assume that it was still in the 'ejective' phase in PIU.

It's possible, yeah, but ad-hoc at this point.

The problem there is that they're diachronically inconvenient, see this paper.

Strictly speaking, the statement that PIE had no *b < **ɓ is too strong - it probably did exist in native PIE words, it was just uncommon. Even still, even if late PIE had no *b, that doesn't rule out no **ɓ, as there could have been sound changes at any point that eliminated it.

I think here he's trying to juxtapose Uralic with the individual branches of IE, as if that were valid like it is for Anatolian. And it isn't valid because whatever PIU might have looked like, there was clearly a lot of independent development between it and PIE (that is, independent from the develo...

Well I don't make a big deal out of it.

What Jal said.

What's so incomprehensible about that one?

o.o Oh ok

What? Why am I being referenced?

No problem. Indo-Uralic is really cool, and I think the implosive theory of the IE stop system is the best option I've seen, and seeing them supporting each other like this is awesome.

WeepingElf, you might find this paper interesting. Some of the nasal correspondences there can also be explained by nasal infixes. Compare: PU: lämpi 'warmth' [HPUL] ~ PIE: leh₂p 'to glow' [LIV2] -> Ancient Greek lámpō 'to shine' and lampás 'torch, light'. PFU: päŋi 'head' [HPUL], ? PFU poŋï 'bosom...

WeepingElf, you might find this paper interesting.

Did you explain the situation and ask them to contact the people with the car for you?

I don't think most people are in the business of stealing your identity. Even if they did discover your documents, I think it's more likely that they have either done nothing, are attempting to return them to you, or have alerted the company.

Have you contacted the rental company? They may well have cleared the car out first, and if they do, they probably have your stuff. If not, they can at least contact the people who now have the car.

Intergalactic Standard is straightforwardly T5. Sphinx is... weird because it has /ʏ ɯ/ instead of /i u/, but is otherwise T5.

"moss-eyed" and "maw-side" How would anyone make a difference between these two? I distinguish them by vowel quality, /ɒ/ against /ɔː/, though I doubt that's what you were asking. but this example and thinking singer and ahead differ in the place of the syllable boundary for me have no basis in the...