Just a nit-pick - Khmer has kept its implosives, and they don't seem to have been preglottalised. On the other hand, most Tai languages have lost preglottalisation, with old voiced stops becoming breathy and subsequently becoming voiceless or aspirated voiceless (Thai, Lao and neighbours).vokzhen wrote:In the other branches, either the glottalization becomes pure phonation (creaky voice) and, in Greco-Armenian-Aryan, then pushes the voiced towards breathy, or preglottalization is lost directly (Khmer, some Mayan ɓ>ʔb>b), after the voiced series becomes breathy in Greco-Aryan.
The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread
Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread
- KathTheDragon
- Smeric
- Posts: 2139
- Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:48 am
- Location: Brittania
Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread
Ronald Kim endorses it, actually. Do you have any links for the alternative explanations?kanejam wrote:Actually this is fairly controversial, IIRC only Ringe supports this and it's based on only two words for which there are several alternative possible explanations.
- KathTheDragon
- Smeric
- Posts: 2139
- Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:48 am
- Location: Brittania
Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread
[quote="kanejam"]one could argue that the bizarre Celtic shift *gʷ > *b makes more sense if it's an attempt to rebalance the back-heavy implosive series.
I don't think the shift supports any particular theory of the phonetics of the *D series, since wouldn't the hole be filled anyway, regardless?
I don't think the shift supports any particular theory of the phonetics of the *D series, since wouldn't the hole be filled anyway, regardless?
Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread
Not really, I can't seem to find much on it - I can give the two words though: tsik and tsäk from *dheig'h and *dhegwh, rather than the expected **cik and **cäk. Van Winkedens assumes that ts is simply the outcome of a palatalised *dh, whereas Krause assumes that any of the coronal stops can produce ts or c.KathTheDragon wrote:Ronald Kim endorses it, actually. Do you have any links for the alternative explanations?kanejam wrote:Actually this is fairly controversial, IIRC only Ringe supports this and it's based on only two words for which there are several alternative possible explanations.
Yeah, true, although the fact that it shifted and *gʷh didn't suggests it was more marked somehow, in a way that I don't see from the traditional system.KathTheDragon wrote:I don't think the shift supports any particular theory of the phonetics of the *D series, since wouldn't the hole be filled anyway, regardless?kanejam wrote:one could argue that the bizarre Celtic shift *gʷ > *b makes more sense if it's an attempt to rebalance the back-heavy implosive series.
- Salmoneus
- Sanno
- Posts: 3197
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
- Location: One of the dark places of the world
Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread
...*gw>b is an incredibly ordinary, to-be-expected shift, not strange in any way.
The fact that it shifted before the aspirated version just reinforces it having been plain voiced. Voiced /b/, /w/, /gw/ etc are extremely close to one another and often slide around, after all.
The fact that it shifted before the aspirated version just reinforces it having been plain voiced. Voiced /b/, /w/, /gw/ etc are extremely close to one another and often slide around, after all.
Blog: [url]http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/[/url]
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread
Plus, *b was rare-to-nonexistent in PIE (which was part of what motivated the original glottalic theory), meaning that pretty much no information is lost in a *gw > b shift.
Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread
Regarding *T 'D D → *T D Dʰ as pan PIE change: What would be the motivation to have a murmured series without aspirated one? If 'D by deglottalising pushes D into something else, T D → Tʰ T is a much more probable change and has happened numerous times. Tʰ D T is a perfectly normal stop series system, whereas T D Dʰ isn't attested almost anywhere. What is the motivation for *T 'D D to change in the latter instead of in the former?
Therefore I think the shift *T 'D D → *T D Dʰ never happened as such and definitely not on a pan IE scale. For every other branch outside Graeco-Aryan there is alternative explanation. For Indo-Iranian, assuming that plain stops had aspirated stops as allophones back then makes the shift *T~Tʰ 'D D → *T~Tʰ D Dʰ much more probable and motivated, because it brings symmetry in the system. Proto-Indic then gives full phonemic status to the aspirated stops, whereas Proto-Iranian loses them and subsequently underwents the shift *T D Dʰ → *T D Ð. For Proto-Greek we can assume the same thing with further *T D Ð → *T D θ.
Therefore I think the shift *T 'D D → *T D Dʰ never happened as such and definitely not on a pan IE scale. For every other branch outside Graeco-Aryan there is alternative explanation. For Indo-Iranian, assuming that plain stops had aspirated stops as allophones back then makes the shift *T~Tʰ 'D D → *T~Tʰ D Dʰ much more probable and motivated, because it brings symmetry in the system. Proto-Indic then gives full phonemic status to the aspirated stops, whereas Proto-Iranian loses them and subsequently underwents the shift *T D Dʰ → *T D Ð. For Proto-Greek we can assume the same thing with further *T D Ð → *T D θ.
Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread
I never said it was, what I'm calling weird is the fact it shifted and none of the other labiovelars did. Although, as CatDoom points out, it's filling a hole. It's not watertight evidence but it's something to think about. There aren't mountains of evidence in either direction but to me there seems to be more for a voiced glottalic/implosive system. As Kath has said it needs more research.Salmoneus wrote:...*gw>b is an incredibly ordinary, to-be-expected shift, not strange in any way.
@Zju, I don't think anyone is claiming that *T 'D D → *T D Dʰ happened more than once, in which case it doesn't need to be likely, only possible - which it is because it's attested. I don't get your second paragraph though, Greek and Iranian underwent the changes *T D Dʰ -> *T D Tʰ and *T D D respectively.
- KathTheDragon
- Smeric
- Posts: 2139
- Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:48 am
- Location: Brittania
Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread
Of those two possibilities, the latter is hardly convincing (as it's stated) since it doesn't offer any sort of conditioning. The former is interesting, since it implies that palatalisation came before Tocharian collapsed its obstruent inventory. This merits further research.kanejam wrote:Not really, I can't seem to find much on it - I can give the two words though: tsik and tsäk from *dheig'h and *dhegwh, rather than the expected **cik and **cäk. Van Winkedens assumes that ts is simply the outcome of a palatalised *dh, whereas Krause assumes that any of the coronal stops can produce ts or c.KathTheDragon wrote:Ronald Kim endorses it, actually. Do you have any links for the alternative explanations?kanejam wrote:Actually this is fairly controversial, IIRC only Ringe supports this and it's based on only two words for which there are several alternative possible explanations.
Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread
Zju wrote:For Indo-Iranian, assuming that plain stops had aspirated stops as allophones back then makes the shift *T~Tʰ 'D D → *T~Tʰ D Dʰ much more probable and motivated, because it brings symmetry in the system. Proto-Indic then gives full phonemic status to the aspirated stops, whereas Proto-Iranian loses them and subsequently underwents the shift *T D Dʰ → *T D Ð. For Proto-Greek we can assume the same thing with further *T D Ð → *T D θ.
Plus, Iranian does not loose the aspirated unvoiced stops, they also have phonemic status (and become voiceless fricatives in the attested Old Iranian languages). The most parsimonious assumption is that the 4-series system T Th D Dh already arose in Indo-Iranian.kanejam wrote:@Zju, I don't think anyone is claiming that *T 'D D → *T D Dʰ happened more than once, in which case it doesn't need to be likely, only possible - which it is because it's attested. I don't get your second paragraph though, Greek and Iranian underwent the changes *T D Dʰ -> *T D Tʰ and *T D D respectively.
On Germanic: I agree that it's possible that the devoicing of D happened before the aspirated stops became fricatives; the main point is a gap arose by the aspiration and later fricativization of T. And yes, we cannot exclude a (Modern) Greek Scenario for Germanic (PIE *T D Dʰ (*1) > Pre-PGmc.Th T D (*2) > PGmc Þ T Ð), but I like the parallelism of Th Dh > Ð Þ (aspirates to fricatives) in my favourite proposal.
(*1) Just using the traditional symbols, not necessary implying the traditional series.
(*2) This Pre-PGmc system, of course, would then look exactly like the Armenian System.
- 2+3 clusivity
- Avisaru
- Posts: 454
- Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:34 pm
Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread
Maybe a year ago, someone posted a link to an older French book comparing the phonologies of various Armenian dialects. Does anyone have the link for that still? Also, does anyone have a .pdf grammar/description for western Armenian or the Sebastia dialect of Armenian?
linguoboy wrote:So that's what it looks like when the master satirist is moistened by his own moutarde.
- KathTheDragon
- Smeric
- Posts: 2139
- Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:48 am
- Location: Brittania
Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread
My point is not that anyone is claiming that *T 'D D → *T D Dʰ happened more than once, but rather it doesn't need to have happened at PIE level, only in a subbranch.kanejam wrote:I never said it was, what I'm calling weird is the fact it shifted and none of the other labiovelars did. Although, as CatDoom points out, it's filling a hole. It's not watertight evidence but it's something to think about. There aren't mountains of evidence in either direction but to me there seems to be more for a voiced glottalic/implosive system. As Kath has said it needs more research.Salmoneus wrote:...*gw>b is an incredibly ordinary, to-be-expected shift, not strange in any way.
@Zju, I don't think anyone is claiming that *T 'D D → *T D Dʰ happened more than once, in which case it doesn't need to be likely, only possible - which it is because it's attested. I don't get your second paragraph though, Greek and Iranian underwent the changes *T D Dʰ -> *T D Tʰ and *T D D respectively.
Yeah, I seriously need to recall the developments in Indo-Aryan and Greek (and Armenian for that matter).
---------------
Does anyone know where I can access current research in PIE? As in where are the contemporary articles and developments published, besides academia.edu and where are the latest opinions about controversies stated?
- WeepingElf
- Smeric
- Posts: 1630
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:00 pm
- Location: Braunschweig, Germany
- Contact:
Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread
Do you think that hyperbaton (syntactic scrambling as in the first sentence of the Odyssey, Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, polytrôpon, sorry for the missing diacritics, where the adjective polytrôpon forms a NP with andra) was a PIE trait, or is it a Greek innovation which spread to Latin as Roman writers imitated Greek ways? Is there a tradition of hyperbaton in Sanskrit? Or in any other IE language outside Hellenic and Italic?
...brought to you by the Weeping Elf
Tha cvastam émi cvastam santham amal phelsa. -- Friedrich Schiller
ESTAR-3SG:P human-OBJ only human-OBJ true-OBJ REL-LOC play-3SG:A
Tha cvastam émi cvastam santham amal phelsa. -- Friedrich Schiller
ESTAR-3SG:P human-OBJ only human-OBJ true-OBJ REL-LOC play-3SG:A
Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread
It can be used in Polish poetry but I don't know if it has been modelled on the Greek way or not.
The conlanger formerly known as “the conlanger formerly known as Pole, the”.
If we don't study the mistakes of the future we're doomed to repeat them for the first time.
If we don't study the mistakes of the future we're doomed to repeat them for the first time.
Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread
Consulting Watkins' How to Kill a Dragon, I note examples in Avestan, Sanskrit and Old English, just on a casual flick-through. I'm aware of examples in Middle Welsh, as well. Given that OE and MW might be influenced by the classical tradition, and Latin by Greek, its presence in Avestan and Sanskrit point at least a Greco-Aryan trait.WeepingElf wrote:Do you think that hyperbaton (syntactic scrambling as in the first sentence of the Odyssey, Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, polytrôpon, sorry for the missing diacritics, where the adjective polytrôpon forms a NP with andra) was a PIE trait, or is it a Greek innovation which spread to Latin as Roman writers imitated Greek ways? Is there a tradition of hyperbaton in Sanskrit? Or in any other IE language outside Hellenic and Italic?
Salmoneus wrote:(NB Dewrad is behaving like an adult - a petty, sarcastic and uncharitable adult, admittedly, but none the less note the infinitely higher quality of flame)
- KathTheDragon
- Smeric
- Posts: 2139
- Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:48 am
- Location: Brittania
Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread
Does anyone have any references on Anatolian syntax?
- JounaPyysalo
- Lebom
- Posts: 99
- Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2015 4:08 am
- Contact:
Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread
Hi @ all,
I see that there is a lot of discussion on the glottalic hypothesis with assumptions more or less equaling to *T(h) T' D(h).
Now, I am not sure whether any of you has actually seen the consequences of such a theory in reality, and if not, please read the book of T.V. Gamkrelidze and V. V. Ivanov:
"Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans: A reconstruction and Historical Analysis of a Proto-Language and a Proto-Culture. Part I: The Text."
(Mouton de Gruyter Berlin-New York 1995.
In so doing you will notice that the output is very close to a total chaos as it is not nearly always obvious where the 'reconstructions' actually refer to.
J.
I see that there is a lot of discussion on the glottalic hypothesis with assumptions more or less equaling to *T(h) T' D(h).
Now, I am not sure whether any of you has actually seen the consequences of such a theory in reality, and if not, please read the book of T.V. Gamkrelidze and V. V. Ivanov:
"Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans: A reconstruction and Historical Analysis of a Proto-Language and a Proto-Culture. Part I: The Text."
(Mouton de Gruyter Berlin-New York 1995.
In so doing you will notice that the output is very close to a total chaos as it is not nearly always obvious where the 'reconstructions' actually refer to.
J.
- KathTheDragon
- Smeric
- Posts: 2139
- Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:48 am
- Location: Brittania
Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread
You do know that the glottalic hypothesis is really just a renaming of the three stop series? That is, traditional T == glottalic T, traditional D == glottalic T', traditional Dh == glottalic D. One-to-one correspondence. As far as real comparativistics goes, the two theories are absolutely equivalent, and the only real evidence either way is diachronic plausibility.JounaPyysalo wrote:Hi @ all,
I see that there is a lot of discussion on the glottalic hypothesis with assumptions more or less equaling to *T(h) T' D(h).
Now, I am not sure whether any of you has actually seen the consequences of such a theory in reality, and if not, please read the book of T.V. Gamkrelidze and V. V. Ivanov:
"Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans: A reconstruction and Historical Analysis of a Proto-Language and a Proto-Culture. Part I: The Text."
(Mouton de Gruyter Berlin-New York 1995.
In so doing you will notice that the output is very close to a total chaos as it is not nearly always obvious where the 'reconstructions' actually refer to.
J.
- JounaPyysalo
- Lebom
- Posts: 99
- Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2015 4:08 am
- Contact:
Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread
Kath,
Yes, but no: There are not three but four series in PIE correspondence sets, just as in Sanskrit, T : Th : D : Dɦ. In the absence of the series Th there's a gap in distinctions that the Glottalic Theory can display, which is really irritating in Gamkrelidze & Ivanov, who prefer to write their sets as Th : T' : Dh with the result that the sets Th and T are mixed together. Try the book to see what I mean.
(Naturally I am aware of the analysis of the set Neogr. *Th = T+h, which I accept, but I also prefer to analyse the set Dɦ = D+ɦ and furthermore the set D as ɦ—D or D—ɦ (the voiced *ɦ being the cause of the existence of the series D).
Yes, but no: There are not three but four series in PIE correspondence sets, just as in Sanskrit, T : Th : D : Dɦ. In the absence of the series Th there's a gap in distinctions that the Glottalic Theory can display, which is really irritating in Gamkrelidze & Ivanov, who prefer to write their sets as Th : T' : Dh with the result that the sets Th and T are mixed together. Try the book to see what I mean.
(Naturally I am aware of the analysis of the set Neogr. *Th = T+h, which I accept, but I also prefer to analyse the set Dɦ = D+ɦ and furthermore the set D as ɦ—D or D—ɦ (the voiced *ɦ being the cause of the existence of the series D).
- KathTheDragon
- Smeric
- Posts: 2139
- Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:48 am
- Location: Brittania
Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread
The fourth series is no longer accepted, which renders your point moot.JounaPyysalo wrote:Kath,
Yes, but no: There are not three but four series in PIE correspondence sets, just as in Sanskrit, T : Th : D : Dɦ. In the absence of the series Th there's a gap in distinctions that the Glottalic Theory can display, which is really irritating in Gamkrelidze & Ivanov, who prefer to write their sets as Th : T' : Dh with the result that the sets Th and T are mixed together. Try the book to see what I mean.
(Naturally I am aware of the analysis of the set Neogr. *Th = T+h, which I accept, but I also prefer to analyse the set Dɦ = D+ɦ and furthermore the set D as ɦ—D or D—ɦ (the voiced *ɦ being the cause of the existence of the series D).
- JounaPyysalo
- Lebom
- Posts: 99
- Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2015 4:08 am
- Contact:
Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread
Kath,
In correspondences of the real (actual) etymology there are four oppositions T : Th : D : Dɦ, all of which need to be fully reconstructed in order to get the reconstruction right, regardless of whether we accept the series Th (and Dɦ) as original or not. To illustrate my point (using reconstruction à la PIE Lexicon with a single glottal fricative with voiceless and voiced variant PIE *h/ɦ always accompanied with PIE *ɑ), the following four alternatives of T : Th : D : Dɦ belong together as reconstructed:
PIE *tehɑnGɦu̯ēɑh(t)- -› OIr. teng- (f.) ‘Zunge’ (DIL. XX)
PIE *thɑenGɦu̯ēɑh(t)- -› OW tauawt (f.) ‘Zunge’ (EtDiPC. 368)
PIE *deɦɑnGɦu̯ēɑh- -› OLat. dinguā- (f.) ‘Zunge’ (WH X:XX)
PIE *dɦɑenGɦu̯ēɑh- -› Osc. fanguā- (f.) ‘Zunge’ (OUD. 264)
For this reason the only way to reconstruct correctly is to indicate PIE *h/ɦ both segmentally (i.e. not following the stop) and non-segmentally (i.e. after the stop).
Jouna
In correspondences of the real (actual) etymology there are four oppositions T : Th : D : Dɦ, all of which need to be fully reconstructed in order to get the reconstruction right, regardless of whether we accept the series Th (and Dɦ) as original or not. To illustrate my point (using reconstruction à la PIE Lexicon with a single glottal fricative with voiceless and voiced variant PIE *h/ɦ always accompanied with PIE *ɑ), the following four alternatives of T : Th : D : Dɦ belong together as reconstructed:
PIE *tehɑnGɦu̯ēɑh(t)- -› OIr. teng- (f.) ‘Zunge’ (DIL. XX)
PIE *thɑenGɦu̯ēɑh(t)- -› OW tauawt (f.) ‘Zunge’ (EtDiPC. 368)
PIE *deɦɑnGɦu̯ēɑh- -› OLat. dinguā- (f.) ‘Zunge’ (WH X:XX)
PIE *dɦɑenGɦu̯ēɑh- -› Osc. fanguā- (f.) ‘Zunge’ (OUD. 264)
For this reason the only way to reconstruct correctly is to indicate PIE *h/ɦ both segmentally (i.e. not following the stop) and non-segmentally (i.e. after the stop).
Jouna
Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread
This abstract algebra again? I wonder what would take him to understand how the things stand.
PIE ***tainaga- -› OIr. teng-
PIE ***thāhoavatha- -› OW tauawt
PIE ***deynguvah- -› OLat. dinguā-
PIE ***dhanguvah- -› Osc. fanguā-
Piece of cake. Everybody can come up with this sort of rules and protoforms. Explaining all the developments from a single protoform, however, is a whole different thing, and this is why everybody subscribes to the communis opinio that *dn̥ǵʰwéh₂s, for what we know, was in fact the PIE word for tongue.
For as long as your hypothesis does not provide anything better, nobody will buy it. The stop + laryngeal algebra is worse than the traditional model in many ways, not the least because the latter is obliquely attested everywhere and the former is entirely speculative. Instead of searching for weaknesses of other models (which, mind you, have already been discussed at length) you have to actually demonstrate that your hypothesis is in any way better.
That and you haven't explained why ɑ isn't merely an alophone of a in your hypothesis.
It is quite easy to derive four words from four different proto-forms that are twice as long and the only thing they do is erode segments in different ways. Let me try:JounaPyysalo wrote:Kath,
In correspondences of the real (actual) etymology there are four oppositions T : Th : D : Dɦ, all of which need to be fully reconstructed in order to get the reconstruction right, regardless of whether we accept the series Th (and Dɦ) as original or not. To illustrate my point (using reconstruction à la PIE Lexicon with a single glottal fricative with voiceless and voiced variant PIE *h/ɦ always accompanied with PIE *ɑ), the following four alternatives of T : Th : D : Dɦ belong together as reconstructed:
PIE *tehɑnGɦu̯ēɑh(t)- -› OIr. teng- (f.) ‘Zunge’ (DIL. XX)
PIE *thɑenGɦu̯ēɑh(t)- -› OW tauawt (f.) ‘Zunge’ (EtDiPC. 368)
PIE *deɦɑnGɦu̯ēɑh- -› OLat. dinguā- (f.) ‘Zunge’ (WH X:XX)
PIE *dɦɑenGɦu̯ēɑh- -› Osc. fanguā- (f.) ‘Zunge’ (OUD. 264)
For this reason the only way to reconstruct correctly is to indicate PIE *h/ɦ both segmentally (i.e. not following the stop) and non-segmentally (i.e. after the stop).
Jouna
PIE ***tainaga- -› OIr. teng-
PIE ***thāhoavatha- -› OW tauawt
PIE ***deynguvah- -› OLat. dinguā-
PIE ***dhanguvah- -› Osc. fanguā-
Piece of cake. Everybody can come up with this sort of rules and protoforms. Explaining all the developments from a single protoform, however, is a whole different thing, and this is why everybody subscribes to the communis opinio that *dn̥ǵʰwéh₂s, for what we know, was in fact the PIE word for tongue.
For as long as your hypothesis does not provide anything better, nobody will buy it. The stop + laryngeal algebra is worse than the traditional model in many ways, not the least because the latter is obliquely attested everywhere and the former is entirely speculative. Instead of searching for weaknesses of other models (which, mind you, have already been discussed at length) you have to actually demonstrate that your hypothesis is in any way better.
That and you haven't explained why ɑ isn't merely an alophone of a in your hypothesis.
- JounaPyysalo
- Lebom
- Posts: 99
- Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2015 4:08 am
- Contact:
Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread
Zju
The four forms belong together and therefore they need to contain the same phonemes in the root viz. Dental + Laryngeal + Nasal + Palatovelar + Velar.
In addition they need to simultaneously explain the alternations in the colouring of the root vowel as well as the alternations of the voice and aspiration in the quality of the initial stop.
This is not the case with the forms PIE *tainaga- *thāhoavatha- *deynguvah- *dhanguvah- – or not even PIE *dn̥ǵʰwéh₂, as some postulate.
Not "everybody subscribes to the communis opinio that *dn̥ǵʰwéh₂s", because it is well known that the Celtic languages have PCelt. *t-, whereas Oscan requires *dh-
If we remove the ablaut vowels (and suffixes) the first two roots reconstructed in my previous comment, PIE *tehɑnGɦu̯- and PIE *thɑenGɦu̯- are reducible to a root PIE √thɑnGɦu̯- whereas the two following forms, PIE *deɦɑnGɦu̯- and PIE *dɦɑenGɦu̯- are reducible to PIE √dɦɑnGɦu̯. If we now use *T to denote to PIE *t/d and *H to denote to PIE *h/ɦ we get a single underlying form PIE √THɑnGɦu̯- regularly underlying all the forms attested.
What you mean by comment "you haven't explained why ɑ isn't merely an alophone of a in your hypothesis." does not explain itself to me, but I can readily say that in PIE Lexicon PIE *ɑ is the reinterpreted Neogrammarian schwa. The difference of the two ‘a-vowels’ is explained by the eight rules common for all Indo-European languages, viz.
define RColouring1a e -> a || ɑ _ .o. RepeatAll; # PIE *ɑe → ɑa | Colouring rule for *ɑe | (Pyysalo 2013: 2.2.5.3)
define RColouring1b é -> á || ɑ _ .o. RepeatAll; # PIE *ɑé → ɑá | Colouring rule for *aé | (Pyysalo 2013: 2.2.5.3)
define RColouring1c e -> a || _ ɑ .o. RepeatAll; # PIE *eɑ → aɑ | Colouring rule for *eɑ | (Pyysalo 2013: 2.2.7)
define RColouring1d é -> á || _ ɑ .o. RepeatAll; # PIE *éɑ → áɑ | Colouring rule for *éɑ | (Pyysalo 2013: 2.2.7)
define RColouring2a ē -> ā || ɑ _ .o. RepeatAll; # PIE *ɑē → ɑā | Colouring rule for *ɑē | (Pyysalo 2013: 2.2.10)
define RColouring2b ē -> ā || _ ɑ .o. RepeatAll; # PIE *ēɑ → āɑ | Colouring rule for *ēɑ | (Pyysalo 2013: 2.2.10)
define RColouring2c ḗ -> ā́ || ɑ _ .o. RepeatAll; # PIE *ɑḗ → ɑā́ | Colouring rule for *ɑḗ | (Pyysalo 2013: 2.2.10)
define RColouring2d ḗ -> ā́ || _ ɑ .o. RepeatAll; # PIE *ḗɑ → ā́ɑ | Colouring rule for *ḗɑ | (Pyysalo 2013: 2.2.10)
When you further apply the ‘schwa-loss’ rule to the outcomes of these rules, i.e.
define RLossofA ɑ -> 0 .o. RepeatAll; # PIE *ɑ → Ø | Loss of *ɑ | (Pyysalo 2013: 2.2.4)
you obtain the vowels a, á, ā and ā́.
Jouna
The four forms belong together and therefore they need to contain the same phonemes in the root viz. Dental + Laryngeal + Nasal + Palatovelar + Velar.
In addition they need to simultaneously explain the alternations in the colouring of the root vowel as well as the alternations of the voice and aspiration in the quality of the initial stop.
This is not the case with the forms PIE *tainaga- *thāhoavatha- *deynguvah- *dhanguvah- – or not even PIE *dn̥ǵʰwéh₂, as some postulate.
Not "everybody subscribes to the communis opinio that *dn̥ǵʰwéh₂s", because it is well known that the Celtic languages have PCelt. *t-, whereas Oscan requires *dh-
If we remove the ablaut vowels (and suffixes) the first two roots reconstructed in my previous comment, PIE *tehɑnGɦu̯- and PIE *thɑenGɦu̯- are reducible to a root PIE √thɑnGɦu̯- whereas the two following forms, PIE *deɦɑnGɦu̯- and PIE *dɦɑenGɦu̯- are reducible to PIE √dɦɑnGɦu̯. If we now use *T to denote to PIE *t/d and *H to denote to PIE *h/ɦ we get a single underlying form PIE √THɑnGɦu̯- regularly underlying all the forms attested.
What you mean by comment "you haven't explained why ɑ isn't merely an alophone of a in your hypothesis." does not explain itself to me, but I can readily say that in PIE Lexicon PIE *ɑ is the reinterpreted Neogrammarian schwa. The difference of the two ‘a-vowels’ is explained by the eight rules common for all Indo-European languages, viz.
define RColouring1a e -> a || ɑ _ .o. RepeatAll; # PIE *ɑe → ɑa | Colouring rule for *ɑe | (Pyysalo 2013: 2.2.5.3)
define RColouring1b é -> á || ɑ _ .o. RepeatAll; # PIE *ɑé → ɑá | Colouring rule for *aé | (Pyysalo 2013: 2.2.5.3)
define RColouring1c e -> a || _ ɑ .o. RepeatAll; # PIE *eɑ → aɑ | Colouring rule for *eɑ | (Pyysalo 2013: 2.2.7)
define RColouring1d é -> á || _ ɑ .o. RepeatAll; # PIE *éɑ → áɑ | Colouring rule for *éɑ | (Pyysalo 2013: 2.2.7)
define RColouring2a ē -> ā || ɑ _ .o. RepeatAll; # PIE *ɑē → ɑā | Colouring rule for *ɑē | (Pyysalo 2013: 2.2.10)
define RColouring2b ē -> ā || _ ɑ .o. RepeatAll; # PIE *ēɑ → āɑ | Colouring rule for *ēɑ | (Pyysalo 2013: 2.2.10)
define RColouring2c ḗ -> ā́ || ɑ _ .o. RepeatAll; # PIE *ɑḗ → ɑā́ | Colouring rule for *ɑḗ | (Pyysalo 2013: 2.2.10)
define RColouring2d ḗ -> ā́ || _ ɑ .o. RepeatAll; # PIE *ḗɑ → ā́ɑ | Colouring rule for *ḗɑ | (Pyysalo 2013: 2.2.10)
When you further apply the ‘schwa-loss’ rule to the outcomes of these rules, i.e.
define RLossofA ɑ -> 0 .o. RepeatAll; # PIE *ɑ → Ø | Loss of *ɑ | (Pyysalo 2013: 2.2.4)
you obtain the vowels a, á, ā and ā́.
Jouna
- KathTheDragon
- Smeric
- Posts: 2139
- Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:48 am
- Location: Brittania
Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread
If you have developments common to all Indo-European tongues, then by definition, what you have reconstructed is pre-PIE. PIE is the latest stage common to all daughters.