The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread

[marconatrix]

I am a Finn ...

I've nothing against Finns, far from it! However I noticed that (almost?) all the people you thank in your thesis for having discussed these ideas with you also appear to be Finns. I find this a little strange when you claim to have made an important breakthrough in a subject that is studied internationally. When I wrote my own thesis, not on linguistics, I admit, but on a rather small and perhaps not very important subject, I nevertheless was in correspondence (by letter this was pre-internet!) with researchers in France, the USA, the Netherlands ... and that's from an insular Brit. I also discussed ideas with several of these people in person at conferences and meetings. You OTOH seem to have been working in a sort of Finnish bubble, perhaps largely confined to a single university/institution. This is especially odd as your studies have spanned quite a number of years and covered a wide range of languages. Did you not attend conferences and symposia? Did you not discuss your ideas with 'outsiders' ?

[KathTheDragon]

There is absolutely no other reason for reconstructing, say, the laryngeal in "h1es-" except Møller's theory of genetic relationship between IE and Semitic, the hypothesis implying that the PIE roots had an identical structure as the (Proto-)Semitic ones, i.e. C1C2·C3.

Wrong. There are independent reasons for reconstructing the laryngeal. The first is the Vedic imperfect, which is built by adding the augment a- to the injunctive (which is morphologically the same as the present, but with secondary endings). In the singular, this is the expected ā́s-, but while we would expect the plural to be **ás-, we instead find ā́s-, as in the singular. There is no way to derive this regularly from any preform without a laryngeal, and I don't think analogy can account for it in any satisfactory way. The only logical conclusion is that there is a root-initial laryngeal, which triggered compensatory lengthening in the zero-grade plural. That is, PIE *é-h₁es-, *é-h₁s- > Vedic ā́s-

Structural inferences do not necessarily preserve the truth: The long imperfects are identical in Greek and in Sanskrit implying *e·es- for both. There is absolutely nothing requiring a laryngeal here.

The Greek forms do not refute a laryngeal reconstruction: here, PIE *é-h₁es-, *é-h₁s- > Greek ἤσ- (and secondary developments).

[JounaPyysalo]

There is absolutely no other reason for reconstructing, say, the laryngeal in "h1es-" except Møller's theory of genetic relationship between IE and Semitic, the hypothesis implying that the PIE roots had an identical structure as the (Proto-)Semitic ones, i.e. C1C2·C3.

Wrong. There are independent reasons for reconstructing the laryngeal. The first is the Vedic imperfect, which is built by adding the augment a- to the injunctive (which is morphologically the same as the present, but with secondary endings). In the singular, this is the expected ā́s-, but while we would expect the plural to be **ás-, we instead find ā́s-, as in the singular. There is no way to derive this regularly from any preform without a laryngeal, and I don't think analogy can account for it in any satisfactory way. The only logical conclusion is that there is a root-initial laryngeal, which triggered compensatory lengthening in the zero-grade plural. That is, PIE *é-h₁es-, *é-h₁s- > Vedic ā́s-

Structural inferences do not necessarily preserve the truth: The long imperfects are identical in Greek and in Sanskrit implying *e·es- for both. There is absolutely nothing requiring a laryngeal here.

The Greek forms do not refute a laryngeal reconstruction: here, PIE *é-h₁es-, *é-h₁s- > Greek ἤσ- (and secondary developments).

They don't refute that but in the Comparative Method of Reconstruction in Indo-European linguistics we need an independent confirmation by two witnesses ("Durch zweier Zeugen Mund wird alle Wahrheit kund") or the PRINCIPLE of POSTULATION. There is no such thing within the data in PIE *s- es- os- ‘sein’.

[KathTheDragon]

There is absolutely no other reason for reconstructing, say, the laryngeal in "h1es-" except Møller's theory of genetic relationship between IE and Semitic, the hypothesis implying that the PIE roots had an identical structure as the (Proto-)Semitic ones, i.e. C1C2·C3.

Wrong. There are independent reasons for reconstructing the laryngeal. The first is the Vedic imperfect, which is built by adding the augment a- to the injunctive (which is morphologically the same as the present, but with secondary endings). In the singular, this is the expected ā́s-, but while we would expect the plural to be **ás-, we instead find ā́s-, as in the singular. There is no way to derive this regularly from any preform without a laryngeal, and I don't think analogy can account for it in any satisfactory way. The only logical conclusion is that there is a root-initial laryngeal, which triggered compensatory lengthening in the zero-grade plural. That is, PIE *é-h₁es-, *é-h₁s- > Vedic ā́s-

Structural inferences do not necessarily preserve the truth: The long imperfects are identical in Greek and in Sanskrit implying *e·es- for both. There is absolutely nothing requiring a laryngeal here.

The Greek forms do not refute a laryngeal reconstruction: here, PIE *é-h₁es-, *é-h₁s- > Greek ἤσ- (and secondary developments).

They don't refute that but in the Comparative Method of Reconstruction in Indo-European linguistics we need an independent confirmation by two witnesses ("Durch zweier Zeugen Mund wird alle Wahrheit kund") or the PRINCIPLE of POSTULATION. There is no such thing within the data in PIE *s- es- os- ‘sein’.

And you have such a confirmation. Both the Greek and Vedic forms can be explained by a root-initial laryngeal without postulating an otherwise unrequired full-grade plural.

Furthermore, why do you keep referring to the Indo-Semitic hypothesis as though we all subscribed to it? It never became mainstream, and nowadays Uralic is considered to be the most likely candidate for a close relation to Indo-European. No, the true reason people nowadays consider an IE root-structure of CeC is because the vast majority of roots are built that way. There are exceedingly few Neogrammarian vowel-initial or -final roots that do not have independent reasons to require laryngeals in those positions, and so it is commonly assumed that even those had laryngeals.

[JounaPyysalo]

KathAveara the site says "You may embed only 5 quotes within each other." so I had to cut the first ones to post:

Structural inferences do not necessarily preserve the truth: The long imperfects are identical in Greek and in Sanskrit implying *e·es- for both. There is absolutely nothing requiring a laryngeal here.[/quote]
The Greek forms do not refute a laryngeal reconstruction: here, PIE *é-h₁es-, *é-h₁s- > Greek ἤσ- (and secondary developments).[/quote]

They don't refute that but in the Comparative Method of Reconstruction in Indo-European linguistics we need an independent confirmation by two witnesses ("Durch zweier Zeugen Mund wird alle Wahrheit kund") or the PRINCIPLE of POSTULATION. There is no such thing within the data in PIE *s- es- os- ‘sein’.[/quote]
And you have such a confirmation. Both the Greek and Vedic forms can be explained by a root-initial laryngeal without postulating an otherwise unrequired full-grade plural.

Furthermore, why do you keep referring to the Indo-Semitic hypothesis as though we all subscribed to it? It never became mainstream, and nowadays Uralic is considered to be the most likely candidate for a close relation to Indo-European. No, the true reason people nowadays consider an IE root-structure of CeC is because the vast majority of roots are built that way. There are exceedingly few Neogrammarian vowel-initial or -final roots that do not have independent reasons to require laryngeals in those positions, and so it is commonly assumed that even those had laryngeals.[/quote]

The base LinB. eh- = Gr. es- is obligatory and augmented with augment serves neatly in producing the long grade – and the same can be said about the base RV. as-, Lat. es- and so forth.

I do know scholars that are not subscribed to Møller's Indo-Semitic theory. These people have their roots in Zgusta (1951), Szemerényi, Tischler (HEG) and others, some of these now our partners in the future. What unites this line of thinking is that there are no "laryngeals" postulated to the proto-language when there are not measurable unambiguous traces for them in the Indo-European languages.

[Terra]

am a Finn and in our culture this sort of extremism is not tolerated so we've taken a different approach

This seems to be a recurring theme: Extremists think that they accurately represent the entirety of their culture, and use the line "But it's my culture!" as a reason/excuse as to why they should get to do things their way. Tell me, why should I believe you here? Another (more famous, in computer science at least) Finn describes Finnish culture as being pretty much the exact opposite:

Linus Torvalds, creator of the Linux operating system, believes that he follows the management by perkele approach by making his opinion very clear. He honestly despises being subtle or "nice". He also recommends to others to not be subtle.[2] He manages by having clear rules (like "never break userspace") and by being demanding especially to his "lieutenants".[3] He explains in a July 2013 email to a colleague who questioned his workplace etiquette, "I'm not polite, and I get upset easily but generally don't hold a grudge - I have these explosive emails."[4]

Yes. And I do it partly (mostly) because it's who I am, and partly
because I honestly despise being subtle or "nice".

The fact is, people need to know what my position on things are. And I
can't just say "please don't do that", because people won't listen. I
say "On the internet, nobody can hear you being subtle", and I mean
it.

And I definitely am not willing to string people along, either. I've
had that happen too - not telling people clearly enough that I don't
like their approach, they go on to re-architect something, and get
really upset when I am then not willing to take their work.

Sarah, first off, I don't have that many tools at hand. Secondly, I
simply don't believe in being polite or politically correct. And you
can point at all those cultural factors where some cultures are not
happy with confrontation (and feel free to make it about gender too -
I think that's almost entirely cultural too). And please bring up
"cultural sensitivity" while at it. And I'll give you back that same
"cultural sensitivity". Please be sensitive to _my_ culture too.

Google "management by perkele".

Do you really want to oppress a minority? Because Finns are a minority
compared to almost any other country. If you want to talk cultural
sensitivity, I'll join you. But my culture includes cursing.

And some of the above is written tonge-in-cheek, but all of it is also
serious. I really fundamentally believe that being honest and open
about your emotions about core/process is good. And because it's damn
hard to read people over email, I think you need to be *more* honest
and *more* open over email. I'm generally nicer in person. Not always.

And yes, I'll happily be part of the discussion at the KS. But I think
you also need to be aware that your "high horse" isn't necessarily all
that high.

(Bold for emphasis is mine.)
Was he being tongue-in-cheek there? I don't know, but I do think that if he's crazy enough to believe that being a neurotic asshole is a good way to govern, then he's also crazy enough to believe that he accurately represents all Finns and Finnish culture.

***

Jouna, I think your theory/explanation is interesting and I'd like to learn more about it when I get the time. I just think that it'd be wise to keep in mind some advice that Zomp (the Board Lord) gives in the introduction thread:

4. If you have a non-standard theory, you'd better be patient and unusually amiable. Don't attack people, don't ignore rebuttals, don't get mad because people don't follow you.

Now, you haven't done any of this yet, but I've seen many threads that started off sane that quickly descended into madness (Octavanio and AshMoonFruit come to mind), so I'm just anticipating what I hope doesn't happen again.

[marconatrix]

Pyysalo Thesis : Section 5.1.1 (pp 465 ff)

(s) 2 (a) 3 and (s) 5 (c) : You deduce the existence of the double segments /ḫa/ ~ /aḫ/ the two elements of which you say have never been observed separately. I find your statement that this "remains possible" at odds with your deductive methods. (Many things "remain possible", pigs might fly ...)

Would it not be simpler to postulate one (or two?) unknown segments which might according to environment and/or language be realised as either a vowel or consonant (or both?) ?

Consider for example some of the reflexes of lenited /g/ in Brittonic. Most commonly this segment is simply deleted. Since /b,d/ lenite > /v,ð/ it is reasonable to assume /g/ > /γ/ > null. However in Cornish and Breton, following /l,r/ the result is identical to /x/ ([x~γ] with maybe also uvular/glottal allophones). In Middle Welsh however, this element is written 'y' interpreted when final as a 'non-syllabic ə'. In the modern language, according to dialect, this either becomes a fully syllabic /a/ or is lost with phonetic lengthening of the preceding /l,r/ (resulting in a short vowel in the main syllable). E.g. the word for 'hold, grip', C dalgh /dalx/, B. dalc'h /dalx/, MW daly /dalə/ (a monosyllable!), ModNW dàl /dall/ ModSW dala /dala/ (2 syllables!). Also C. ergh, MW eiry, ModW eira 'snow' etc. (See Morris Jones, Welsh Grammar (s) 110 (ii) (2) pp177-8).

In other words, it is possible for a 'laryngeal' to be vocalised in certain situations to a fully syllabic vowel, to remain as a consonant, to affect adjoining consonants or to be lost without trace, depending on the phonetic environment and the language/dialect in question.

[jal]

Would it be possible for both the standard laryngeal theory and Jouna's hypothesis to result in the same surface forms in the daughter languages? And if so, would it really matter which theory is the "right" one?


JAL

[sangi39]

Now, you haven't done any of this yet, but I've seen many threads that started off sane that quickly descended into madness (Octavanio and AshMoonFruit come to mind), so I'm just anticipating what I hope doesn't happen again.

Oh god, Octaviano was awful (as was Tienzen Gong if he appeared here as well as on the CBB), but I don't remember AshMoonFruit at all.

[Tropylium]

There are quite a few criticisms I could levy against System PIE, but if I had to pick a couple top problems, I'd go with these basic methodological issues:

1. The overloading of ablaut as a "black box" that is used to explain, almost as a deus ex machina, a number of embarrassing vowel reflexes that are normally explained using regular sound laws within the mainstream laryngeal theory of reconstruction. It should be a clear fact that a theory that allows unlimited alternation between five entities is greatly weaker than theories that seek to set constraints on where, how, and when different ablaut grades could occur.

(For the record, over at the Uralic side we tried loosely speaking this approach to the reconstruction of vowel history in the 1920s. The result was an unmitigated disaster that was completely swept under the carpet after a couple decades. The lesson has been that while Neogrammarian sound equations alone cannot coherently account for all attested vowel reflexes, it is conditional sound changes, such as a-coloring by *h₂ that often provide the best explanation for what may first seem like divergences.)

2. A curious discrepancy between demanding direct reflexes on matters pertaining to the vowel system; and repeated recourse to seemingly undemonstrable internal reconstruction to explain away, for no clear benefit, the existence of the triple phonation contrast and the triple velar series contrast from the consonant system.

(If one were to believe that "minimal number of proto-phonemes" is some kind of a primary desideratum, it would be quite simple to add other equally arbitrary epicycles; suppose for example that *m is to be explained as underlying *np; *p is to be explained as underlying *tw; *l is to be explained as underlying *rr; *e is to be explained as underlying *ai; and so on forth, with ad hoc modifications for edge cases, until one arrives at a Proto-Indo-European "language" containing two phonemes: /0/ and /1/.)

3. Repeated circular reasoning, e.g. in how a hypothesis such as "PIE had only one laryngeal, which was always preserved in Anatolian" is set up, then a competing hypothesis like "seṭ roots had the original structure *CVCH" is rejected (p. 84) on the basis that contrary to the previous hypothesis, the alleged laryngeal does not surface in Anatolian — as if conditional sound changes could not exist — and this "demonstration" of the laryngeal theory's "weakness" is then used to support the claim that the original hypothesis is indeed preferrable.

4. Poor understanding of the typology of synchronic phonology and diachronic sound change, in e.g. setting up a "biphonemic combination" *ah behind standard PIE *h₂ (with no attention paid to the extremely unusual postulation of two proto-segments that almost always co-occurred), or the claim that PIE [ə] developing into /a/ in most branches of IE but /i/ in Indo-Iranian is "next to impossible, phonetically speaking" (p. 101).

In fact unconditional or near-unconditional /a/ : /i/ correspondences are quite easy to attest and quite easy to derive from a single proto-segment, e.g. between Finnish and Northern Sami:
Finnish ilma = Northern Sami albmi 'air'
Finnish liki = Northern Sami lahka 'near'
Finnish nimi = Northern Sami namma 'name'
Finnish silmä = Northern Sami čalbmi 'eye'
(In addition to the regular correspondence F i : NS a that this ought to demonstrate, all other correspondences appearing here are actually regular as well, in particular including even the "inverse" correspondence F a : NS i in stem-final position as in 'air'.)

---

I do not think the theory is without merit, but its flaws are quite numerous and I would not fault professional Indo-Europeanists for mostly choosing to ignore the theory until it has been reworked into a less gratuitously wheel-reinventing shape.

(Disclaimer: I am a student at the same university as Jouna and I have been privy to some non-public criticisms of his work by some colleagues. I will also precommit to refraining from elaborating on any details of his research's backstory, on which I have what might make juicy information, but which has made its way to me solely as second or third-hand gossip.)

[Sumelic]

I do not think the theory is without merit, but its flaws are quite numerous and I would not fault professional Indo-Europeanists for mostly choosing to ignore the theory until it has been reworked into a less gratuitously wheel-reinventing shape.

I generally agree with these criticisms, although my opinion is only as an amateur enthusiast of linguistics and I've only read through the thesis once. I still find it interesting, though! (I'm sorry if anyone else in this thread has been annoyed by having to read my continued questions to Jouna and his responses.)

(Disclaimer: I am a student at the same university as Jouna and I have been privy to some non-public criticisms of his work by some colleagues. I will also precommit to refraining from elaborating on any details of his research's backstory, on which I have what might make juicy information, but which has made its way to me solely as second or third-hand gossip.)

First, thank you for disclosing your connection to the topic. Assuming good will on your part, I think you should take another look at the second sentence and figure out if it needed to be there. It comes across to me as needlessly gossipy itself, and unpleasantly insinuatory in that it suggests that there may be something distasteful or questionable ("juicy") about the research's backstory without committing to any actually substantial accusation. You may not have intended this at all, and that sentence may in fact serve a good purpose, but I just thought I'd let you know my personal reaction to it, as one piece of data.

[Tropylium]

Assuming good will on your part, I think you should take another look at the second sentence and figure out if it needed to be there.

It was included in the first place as a reminder to myself, esp. given that we already had some people upthread speculating on his research's background.

I suppose "juicy" might have been excessive, yes. Shall I downgrade that to "interesting"? I do not think I have any info that would count as outright metaphorical dirt on Jouna.

[JounaPyysalo]

There are quite a few criticisms I could levy against System PIE, but if I had to pick a couple top problems, I'd go with these basic methodological issues:

1. The overloading of ablaut as a "black box" that is used to explain, almost as a deus ex machina, a number of embarrassing vowel reflexes that are normally explained using regular sound laws within the mainstream laryngeal theory of reconstruction. It should be a clear fact that a theory that allows unlimited alternation between five entities is greatly weaker than theories that seek to set constraints on where, how, and when different ablaut grades could occur.
– We are quite unconcerned of that, since the five vowels are those that actually existed. No claim of unlimited alternation is made as such, but we simply allow the vowels of the cognates to be what they are. We want to avoid the process of replacing vowels with h1-h3 commonplace in the mainstream laryngeal theory leading to nowhere.

(For the record, over at the Uralic side we tried loosely speaking this approach to the reconstruction of vowel history in the 1920s. The result was an unmitigated disaster that was completely swept under the carpet after a couple decades. The lesson has been that while Neogrammarian sound equations alone cannot coherently account for all attested vowel reflexes, it is conditional sound changes, such as a-coloring by *h₂ that often provide the best explanation for what may first seem like divergences.)
- We have a plan to avoid such problems: Digitising the PIE Lexicon platform proceeds slowly but steadily and one key feature to be digitised is the ablaut grade of each morpheme. By means of this we will take over the management of the ablaut – and read out the proper rules for the alternation as far as possible.

2. A curious discrepancy between demanding direct reflexes on matters pertaining to the vowel system; and repeated recourse to seemingly undemonstrable internal reconstruction to explain away, for no clear benefit, the existence of the triple phonation contrast and the triple velar series contrast from the consonant system.
- The benefit is admittedly not completely visible as of yet, but this is perhaps because you haven't hit the right examples. There is a vast complementary distribution in the vocabularly which allows the scholars to attach the labiovelar roots to their non-labiovelar counterparts. To see what I mean CTRL+F the root PIE √kɑhu-, √gɑɦu- ‘schlagen, hauen, töten, kämpfen, stechen, töten, treiben, jagen, schmieden, verfertigen, usw.’.

(If one were to believe that "minimal number of proto-phonemes" is some kind of a primary desideratum, it would be quite simple to add other equally arbitrary epicycles; suppose for example that *m is to be explained as underlying *np; *p is to be explained as underlying *tw; *l is to be explained as underlying *rr; *e is to be explained as underlying *ai; and so on forth, with ad hoc modifications for edge cases, until one arrives at a Proto-Indo-European "language" containing two phonemes: /0/ and /1/.)

3. Repeated circular reasoning, e.g. in how a hypothesis such as "PIE had only one laryngeal, which was always preserved in Anatolian" is set up, then a competing hypothesis like "seṭ roots had the original structure *CVCH" is rejected (p. 84) on the basis that contrary to the previous hypothesis, the alleged laryngeal does not surface in Anatolian — as if conditional sound changes could not exist — and this "demonstration" of the laryngeal theory's "weakness" is then used to support the claim that the original hypothesis is indeed preferrable.
- I am aware of the conditional ideas of Eichner, Oettinger and others in particular with regard to the alleged loss of h2 is certain positions. Initially these are discussed only in an implicit manner in PIE Lexicon (CTRL+F √lɦɑbɑɦ- √loɦɑbɑɦ- √leɦɑbɑɦ- (sb.) ‘Elfenbein, Elephant’ to see our opinion on the suggestion that h2 is lost before stops), but there are several articles being written and published soon enough on these topics.
In general, in the selection of the sound laws of PIE Lexicon only those that are consistent both mutually and with regard to the data have been chosen. It has not always been possible to indicate that this or that rule is not acceptable.

4. Poor understanding of the typology of synchronic phonology and diachronic sound change, in e.g. setting up a "biphonemic combination" *ah behind standard PIE *h₂ (with no attention paid to the extremely unusual postulation of two proto-segments that almost always co-occurred), or the claim that PIE [ə] developing into /a/ in most branches of IE but /i/ in Indo-Iranian is "next to impossible, phonetically speaking" (p. 101).

In fact unconditional or near-unconditional /a/ : /i/ correspondences are quite easy to attest and quite easy to derive from a single proto-segment, e.g. between Finnish and Northern Sami:
Finnish ilma = Northern Sami albmi 'air'
Finnish liki = Northern Sami lahka 'near'
Finnish nimi = Northern Sami namma 'name'
Finnish silmä = Northern Sami čalbmi 'eye'
(In addition to the regular correspondence F i : NS a that this ought to demonstrate, all other correspondences appearing here are actually regular as well, in particular including even the "inverse" correspondence F a : NS i in stem-final position as in 'air'.)
- I can say only little about Finno-Ugrian, because I've no formal training in the languages nor do I master them as is the case with the 100 most ancient Indo-European languages. In PIE Lexicon we encounter situations like that as well. Thus the standard outcome of *e in Avestan is /a/ as in LAv. ǰan-. Sometimes, however, the outcome is /ǝ̄/ as in gAv. ǰǝ̄n-. In such cases we don't pretend a (near-)unconditional alternation but mark the exception with red (marking an error in generation in PIE Lexicon), hoping that the conditions can be presented in the future.

---
I do not think the theory is without merit, but its flaws are quite numerous and I would not fault professional Indo-Europeanists for mostly choosing to ignore the theory until it has been reworked into a less gratuitously wheel-reinventing shape.
– I would have something in my mind regarding to this, but this would take us to the details of the broader strategy of PIE Lexicon that I am not authorised to discuss at this point. So perhaps you can wait awhile to see the solutions to emerge through the digital effort itself.

(Disclaimer: I am a student at the same university as Jouna and I have been privy to some non-public criticisms of his work by some colleagues. I will also precommit to refraining from elaborating on any details of his research's backstory, on which I have what might make juicy information, but which has made its way to me solely as second or third-hand gossip.)

[JounaPyysalo]

Pyysalo Thesis : Section 5.1.1 (pp 465 ff)

(s) 2 (a) 3 and (s) 5 (c) : You deduce the existence of the double segments /ḫa/ ~ /aḫ/ the two elements of which you say have never been observed separately. I find your statement that this "remains possible" at odds with your deductive methods. (Many things "remain possible", pigs might fly ...)

Would it not be simpler to postulate one (or two?) unknown segments which might according to environment and/or language be realised as either a vowel or consonant (or both?) ?

Consider for example some of the reflexes of lenited /g/ in Brittonic. Most commonly this segment is simply deleted. Since /b,d/ lenite > /v,ð/ it is reasonable to assume /g/ > /γ/ > null. However in Cornish and Breton, following /l,r/ the result is identical to /x/ ([x~γ] with maybe also uvular/glottal allophones). In Middle Welsh however, this element is written 'y' interpreted when final as a 'non-syllabic ə'. In the modern language, according to dialect, this either becomes a fully syllabic /a/ or is lost with phonetic lengthening of the preceding /l,r/ (resulting in a short vowel in the main syllable). E.g. the word for 'hold, grip', C dalgh /dalx/, B. dalc'h /dalx/, MW daly /dalə/ (a monosyllable!), ModNW dàl /dall/ ModSW dala /dala/ (2 syllables!). Also C. ergh, MW eiry, ModW eira 'snow' etc. (See Morris Jones, Welsh Grammar (s) 110 (ii) (2) pp177-8).

In other words, it is possible for a 'laryngeal' to be vocalised in certain situations to a fully syllabic vowel, to remain as a consonant, to affect adjoining consonants or to be lost without trace, depending on the phonetic environment and the language/dialect in question.

"you say have never been observed separately. I find your statement that this "remains possible" at odds with your deductive methods."
- I say it remains possible, because it remains. The most time-consuming part of my work has been the etymological dictionary written to test the inductive hypotheses, currently consisting of some 5000 A3 pages. Within that I haven't seen a single instance of an independent /a/ or /H/, which doesn't mean that such items cannot emerge from the rest of the data unaccounted and tested as of yet.

With regard to the properties of PIE *ha/ah the issue is not only about syllabicity, but the colouring (and its absence). Ctrl+F the root √ɑɦgu- √ɑɦogu- √ɑɦegu- ‘Spitze, Gipfel, Kopf, Felsgipfel’ (a.) ‘erste, oberste’ (adv.) ‘vor(an), zuerst’ to see how the absence of colouring Hitt. ḫegur- and its presence in Lat. agrippā- can be explained (similarly for the entire class of the items with the Indo-European ablaut e(:) : a(:).

[Terra]

Now, you haven't done any of this yet, but I've seen many threads that started off sane that quickly descended into madness (Octavanio and AshMoonFruit come to mind), so I'm just anticipating what I hope doesn't happen again.

Oh god, Octaviano was awful (as was Tienzen Gong if he appeared here as well as on the CBB), but I don't remember AshMoonFruit at all.

Yes, I meant "Octaviano". I don't know why I spelled it wrong; I was pronouncing it correctly in my head.

AshMoonFruit was the guy who claimed that he had a revolutionary and better way of learning a language, based on his experience of learning Spanish while in the backwoods of some South American country (I don't remember which.).

[JounaPyysalo]

am a Finn and in our culture this sort of extremism is not tolerated so we've taken a different approach

This seems to be a recurring theme: Extremists think that they accurately represent the entirety of their culture, and use the line "But it's my culture!" as a reason/excuse as to why they should get to do things their way. Tell me, why should I believe you here? Another (more famous, in computer science at least) Finn describes Finnish culture as being pretty much the exact opposite:

Linus Torvalds, creator of the Linux operating system, believes that he follows the management by perkele approach by making his opinion very clear. He honestly despises being subtle or "nice". He also recommends to others to not be subtle.[2] He manages by having clear rules (like "never break userspace") and by being demanding especially to his "lieutenants".[3] He explains in a July 2013 email to a colleague who questioned his workplace etiquette, "I'm not polite, and I get upset easily but generally don't hold a grudge - I have these explosive emails."[4]

Yes. And I do it partly (mostly) because it's who I am, and partly
because I honestly despise being subtle or "nice".

The fact is, people need to know what my position on things are. And I
can't just say "please don't do that", because people won't listen. I
say "On the internet, nobody can hear you being subtle", and I mean
it.

And I definitely am not willing to string people along, either. I've
had that happen too - not telling people clearly enough that I don't
like their approach, they go on to re-architect something, and get
really upset when I am then not willing to take their work.

Sarah, first off, I don't have that many tools at hand. Secondly, I
simply don't believe in being polite or politically correct. And you
can point at all those cultural factors where some cultures are not
happy with confrontation (and feel free to make it about gender too -
I think that's almost entirely cultural too). And please bring up
"cultural sensitivity" while at it. And I'll give you back that same
"cultural sensitivity". Please be sensitive to _my_ culture too.

Google "management by perkele".

Do you really want to oppress a minority? Because Finns are a minority
compared to almost any other country. If you want to talk cultural
sensitivity, I'll join you. But my culture includes cursing.

And some of the above is written tonge-in-cheek, but all of it is also
serious. I really fundamentally believe that being honest and open
about your emotions about core/process is good. And because it's damn
hard to read people over email, I think you need to be *more* honest
and *more* open over email. I'm generally nicer in person. Not always.

And yes, I'll happily be part of the discussion at the KS. But I think
you also need to be aware that your "high horse" isn't necessarily all
that high.

(Bold for emphasis is mine.)
Was he being tongue-in-cheek there? I don't know, but I do think that if he's crazy enough to believe that being a neurotic asshole is a good way to govern, then he's also crazy enough to believe that he accurately represents all Finns and Finnish culture.

***

Jouna, I think your theory/explanation is interesting and I'd like to learn more about it when I get the time. I just think that it'd be wise to keep in mind some advice that Zomp (the Board Lord) gives in the introduction thread:

4. If you have a non-standard theory, you'd better be patient and unusually amiable. Don't attack people, don't ignore rebuttals, don't get mad because people don't follow you.

Now, you haven't done any of this yet, but I've seen many threads that started off sane that quickly descended into madness (Octavanio and AshMoonFruit come to mind), so I'm just anticipating what I hope doesn't happen again.

Hi Terra,

Thank you for your nice and helpful comments. Although I can see parallels I do not usually get tempered (because preferring to concentrate on things rather than emotions), but I admit a good degree of impatience, partly explained by the local habits: Finns are known for doing first talking later – and when done we assume everyone is ready to talk – an idiosyncrasy apparently plaguing Mr. Thorvalds as well

To explain my case in brief I've spend years also with developing the laryngeal theory as well as the other mainstream theories, the Paleogrammarian, the Neogrammarian and the Monolaryngealism.

None of these theories functions as whole and each is outdated in its own ways. In addition there are problems in the transmission: When, for instance, the Laryngeal Theory was introduced it did not include the correct solutions of the earlier theories – and even worse, abandoned many of these at the cost of alienating a good deal of capable linguists.

Squarely, OS PIE Lexicon is the digital version of System PIE, my dissertation in which a fresh start for the study is proposed from strictly inductive starting points: In the segmental level virtually every segmental sound law ever proposed has been tested as for its correctness and possibility to complete it into a functional one – or abandoned, if incorrect.

The motive for doing so is obvious at least for myself, that is: The accuracy rate of the mainstream laryngeal theory is well below 50%, a figure far worsened by unintended inconsistencies of the rules in unintended examples, so as i had the chance and capability to survey the problem as a whole I did exactly that.

Jouna

[KathTheDragon]

The accuracy rate of the mainstream laryngeal theory is well below 50%

Citations, please.

[JounaPyysalo]

The accuracy rate of the mainstream laryngeal theory is well below 50%

Citations, please.

No quote, from our hidden database: We're preparing a parallel publication with the very same data generated with the PIE Lexicon and the laryngeal theory sound laws.

It will take a moment before we release since we need to digitise the management of the sound laws first (by autumn), so you may expect the parallel site with generation around the christmas.

J.

[Zju]

There is absolutely no other reason for reconstructing, say, the laryngeal in "h1es-" except Møller's theory of genetic relationship between IE and Semitic, the hypothesis implying that the PIE roots had an identical structure as the (Proto-)Semitic ones, i.e. C1C2·C3.

... There is no way to derive this regularly from any preform without a laryngeal, and I don't think analogy can account for it in any satisfactory way. ...

Why can't an analogical leveling account for it, given that the conditions that caused the apophony are obscured and no longer productive?

[JounaPyysalo]

There is absolutely no other reason for reconstructing, say, the laryngeal in "h1es-" except Møller's theory of genetic relationship between IE and Semitic, the hypothesis implying that the PIE roots had an identical structure as the (Proto-)Semitic ones, i.e. C1C2·C3.

... There is no way to derive this regularly from any preform without a laryngeal, and I don't think analogy can account for it in any satisfactory way. ...

Why can't an analogical leveling account for it, given that the conditions that caused the apophony are obscured and no longer productive?

In PIE Lexicon the mode of thinking is like that of Hock(1991:535):
“Given a choice, analyses postulating sound changes are more highly valued than analyses which require analogical or other non-phonetic changes. Similarly, everything else being equal, analyses operating with regular changes (sound change and/or rule-governed analogy) are preferred over those which require sporadic or less regular changes.”

PIE *os- being implied by multiple witnesses and regularly explaining the data analogy is not needed.

[Terra]

Thank you for your nice and helpful comments. Although I can see parallels I do not usually get tempered (because preferring to concentrate on things rather than emotions), but I admit a good degree of impatience, partly explained by the local habits: Finns are known for doing first talking later – and when done we assume everyone is ready to talk – an idiosyncrasy apparently plaguing Mr. Thorvalds as well ;)

So, I criticized you for claiming the your behavior accurately represents the feelings of all Finns, and in reply, you ignore or misunderstand this criticism, think instead that I criticized you for being impatient, and then defend your feelings by claiming that all Finns are this way.

My face right now:

[Dē Graut Bʉr]

Jouna, you keep saying that your reconstruction is the correct one and that you only reconstruct the sounds that actually existed and so on, but how can you be so sure that your reconstruction actually is correct? I mean, you Finns aren't native speakers of PIE, are you?

[JounaPyysalo]

Jouna, you keep saying that your reconstruction is the correct one and that you only reconstruct the sounds that actually existed and so on, but how can you be so sure that your reconstruction actually is correct? I mean, you Finns aren't native speakers of PIE, are you?

This is easy: August Fick, one of the first compilers of an Indo-European etymological dictionary – realised the principle underlying the Comparative Method of Reconstruction.

He twisted a little a famous quote from Goethe's Faust simplifying in into the form (as a motto of his dictionary):

"Durch zweier Zeugen Mund wird alle Wahrheit kund"

This coincides with the PRINCIPLE of POSTULATION (or reconstruction) expressing the key idea: Whatever is postulated must happen through two independent unambiguous witnesses, in the case of Indo-European languages – as explained by Pedersen – through two branches at least.

Fick understood this, Pedersen understood this I understood this and I think many others do as well.

Jouna

[JounaPyysalo]

Thank you for your nice and helpful comments. Although I can see parallels I do not usually get tempered (because preferring to concentrate on things rather than emotions), but I admit a good degree of impatience, partly explained by the local habits: Finns are known for doing first talking later – and when done we assume everyone is ready to talk – an idiosyncrasy apparently plaguing Mr. Thorvalds as well

So, I criticized you for claiming the your behavior accurately represents the feelings of all Finns, and in reply, you ignore or misunderstand this criticism, think instead that I criticized you for being impatient, and then defend your feelings by claiming that all Finns are this way.

My face right now:

This is bit harder but I would say that perhaps the intention is not as naive as I would claim myself to represent all Finns: How can I, for instance, know that you're not a Finn too, which would be quite possible actually, taken your straightforward, Finnish-resembling style?

What I mean is that often – if not always – I have learned that the style of actions of many Finns abroad is in a way sensational – and it's common knowledge here. Unlike the most Europeans we Finns were living in the forest not too many centuries ago and the differences can be felt between Swedish- and Finnish-speaking populations even today.

Now we've got sauna ready so I'll be back on this later on.

Jouna

[marconatrix]

I find your statement that this "remains possible" at odds with your deductive methods."

I say it remains possible, because it remains. The most time-consuming part of my work has been the etymological dictionary written to test the inductive hypotheses, currently consisting of some 5000 A3 pages. Within that I haven't seen a single instance of an independent /a/ or /H/, which doesn't mean that such items cannot emerge from the rest of the data unaccounted and tested as of yet.

If in several thousand examples no case has come to light, then nothing is added to your theory by separating the features of this segment out into two 'independent' phonemes. Unless perhaps you can show some difference between the results of /ha/ and /ah/. Otherwise you are just adding a complication with no explanatory power. Simply making a complex matter more complex than is necessary. Yes, evidence could come to light. But evidence of any number of things we've failed to imagine, *could* arise. Previously unknown texts in an early IE offshoot *could* be discovered justifying H5-H9 and three different varieties of r-phoneme. Or who knows what? Just because they are *possible* doesn't mean they are probable, and there is no justification in including them in a theoretical model *unless* some other part of the system is simplified as a consequence.

With regard to the properties of PIE *ha/ah the issue is not only about syllabicity, but the colouring (and its absence). Ctrl+F the root √ɑɦgu- √ɑɦogu- √ɑɦegu- ‘Spitze, Gipfel, Kopf, Felsgipfel’ (a.) ‘erste, oberste’ (adv.) ‘vor(an), zuerst’ to see how the absence of colouring Hitt. ḫegur- and its presence in Lat. agrippā- can be explained (similarly for the entire class of the items with the Indo-European ablaut e(:) : a(:).

Forgive my naïvety but isn't this just the result of ablaut? I.e. in the zero grade /ɦgu-/ an epenthetic vowel develops which is identified with the /a/ phoneme, so /ɦagu/, whereas elsewhere there is an existing vowel which simply remains? That is I'm saying the 'a' in your 'ah~ha' is not an original phoneme, in so far as it existed it was simply a property/feature of the /ɦ/ which might add a-colouring to an adjacent vowel, e.g. to an epenthetic /ə/ ?

But I think trying to explain every detail of any real attested language is somewhat futile. If you've ever worked with actual mss or I imagine inscriptions, then you must know that there are many small variants and changes, parallel forms and so on. Some of which can be explained by various analogies, others which are simply unexplained but which clearly have happened. The wonder really is that languages evolve anything like as regularly as they do!