The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread
- WeepingElf
- Smeric
- Posts: 1630
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:00 pm
- Location: Braunschweig, Germany
- Contact:
The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread
There recently have been some discussions of Proto-Indo-European phonology in this thread where it is a tangent, so I have decided to open a new thread here in L&L for such discussions (not only of phonology but also for all other things PIE).
...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
1) Why does PIE lack *b in native roots? (Roots that are neither borrowings nor imitations nor cradle words.)
2a) Why can't a voiceless stop and voiced aspirated stop exist together in a root?
2b) Why can't two voiced stops exist together in a root?
2a) Why can't a voiceless stop and voiced aspirated stop exist together in a root?
2b) Why can't two voiced stops exist together in a root?
- KathTheDragon
- Smeric
- Posts: 2139
- Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:48 am
- Location: Brittania
Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread
It does?Terra wrote:1) Why does PIE lack *b in native roots? (Roots that are neither borrowings nor imitations nor cradle words.)
-
- Smeric
- Posts: 1258
- Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:07 pm
- Location: Miracle, Inc. Headquarters
- Contact:
Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread
Can someone explain to me how to figure out the different transcriptions and to switch between them when necessary?
I'm used to the h1 h2 h3 system, but there are others that I see less frequently, and when compiling data, I find it hard to read.
Also, what is H, h4, ha and hx?
I know Hamp/Sen use hx and ha, but Lehmann uses <ʔ> and that's just a bit confusing if you don't remember what it is.
Furthermore, my Dictionary of Proto-Indo-European Roots uses a different transcription (doesn't use laryngeals or palatals, I think), one that indicates a "later" PIE, but also uses the old H transcription to describe entries after the new transcription as well.
I'm used to the h1 h2 h3 system, but there are others that I see less frequently, and when compiling data, I find it hard to read.
Also, what is H, h4, ha and hx?
I know Hamp/Sen use hx and ha, but Lehmann uses <ʔ> and that's just a bit confusing if you don't remember what it is.
Furthermore, my Dictionary of Proto-Indo-European Roots uses a different transcription (doesn't use laryngeals or palatals, I think), one that indicates a "later" PIE, but also uses the old H transcription to describe entries after the new transcription as well.
[bɹ̠ˤʷɪs.təɫ]
Nōn quālibet inīquā cupiditāte illectus hoc agō
Yo te pongo en tu lugar...
Taisc mach Daró
Nōn quālibet inīquā cupiditāte illectus hoc agō
Yo te pongo en tu lugar...
Taisc mach Daró
Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread
-- H is a laryngeal of unknown quality, so either h1, h2, or h3.Also, what is H, h4, ha and hx?
-- ha = h2 (The a-coloring laryngeal.)
-- ʔ (a glottal stop) is for those who recostruct four laryngeals. The three laryngeal theory merges this with H1. The reason is that sometimes h1 reflects Anatolian h (with some squiggle underneath), and it sometimes doesn't. h1 is for the times it does reflect h, and ʔ is for the times it does not.
-- I don't know what h4 and hx are. (I guess that I'd assume that h4 is another symbol for the glottal stop.) (I could probably figure out what these laryngeals are if you posted some examples of words that they appear in.)
- KathTheDragon
- Smeric
- Posts: 2139
- Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:48 am
- Location: Brittania
Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread
I believe hx is another way of denoting H.
- 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
We don't know.KathAveara wrote:It does?Terra wrote:1) Why does PIE lack *b in native roots? (Roots that are neither borrowings nor imitations nor cradle words.)
It certainly seems as though PIE had very few words with *b in them. Whether it had none is a bit different - because there are so few of them, people like to say 'it has *b in it so it must be a loanword', and then bingo, there are no native nonbabytalk words with *b in them.
[Eg. *bak (b2ek, whatever). Assumed to be a loanword, although it must either be early or widespread since it's in italic, celtic, greek, germanic, and possibly baltic]
hx is sometimes used as a laryngeal of unknown nature, I think.
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
Even if PIE did, the question just then becomes: Why did it have so few?We don't know.
It certainly seems as though PIE had very few words with *b in them. Whether it had none is a bit different - because there are so few of them, people like to say 'it has *b in it so it must be a loanword', and then bingo, there are no native nonbabytalk words with *b in them.
For the skeptical, there are other indications that a word is a loanword:
1) Limited/Regional distribution among IE languages.
2) Is a word for a new/regional animal/plant/technology.
3) Is a root-noun. (Doesn't have any verbs derived from it.)
4) Has /a/ (Which admittedly has the same problem as /b/ about whether/how it existed.)
Edit: One more:
5) Has irregular correspondences in languages it does show up in. ("nut": *knew-d- (Germanic), *knew-k- (Italic), *knew-H- (Celtic))
Last edited by Terra on Sat Nov 23, 2013 2:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Sleinad Flar
- Lebom
- Posts: 124
- Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:18 pm
- Location: Coriovallum, Germania Inferior
Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread
The glottalic theory (see wikipedia) attempts to explain the (almost) non-existence of /b/ and root structure (as well as stuff like Grimm's Law in Germanic and Armenian). IIRC the voiceless/voiced/aspirated becomes voiceless/ejective/voiced. Ejective /p'/ is apparently hard to pronounce [citation needed] and the root constraints seem to be typologically plausible in languages with such a glottalic system [citation needed].
h4 is an a-coloring laryngeal, which is reconstructed in places were Hittite doesn't preserve the laryngeal. In contrast, the other a-coloring laryngeal h2 is preserved in Hittite. To put it in another way: *h2e becomes ha and *h4e becomes a in Hittite. (I've also seen ha in reconstructions, when the nature of the a-coloring laryngeal is uncertain, because the word isn't preserved in Anatolian). Personally I think reconstructing this extra laryngeal is unnecessary: *h4e might as well be *h1a or even simply *a.
I'm not going to touch the phonetic values of the other laryngeals, but h1 is usually assumed to be the glottal stop.
h4 is an a-coloring laryngeal, which is reconstructed in places were Hittite doesn't preserve the laryngeal. In contrast, the other a-coloring laryngeal h2 is preserved in Hittite. To put it in another way: *h2e becomes ha and *h4e becomes a in Hittite. (I've also seen ha in reconstructions, when the nature of the a-coloring laryngeal is uncertain, because the word isn't preserved in Anatolian). Personally I think reconstructing this extra laryngeal is unnecessary: *h4e might as well be *h1a or even simply *a.
I'm not going to touch the phonetic values of the other laryngeals, but h1 is usually assumed to be the glottal stop.
"Was ist ist, was nicht ist ist möglich"
http://sleinadflar.deviantart.com
http://sleinadflar.deviantart.com
- WeepingElf
- Smeric
- Posts: 1630
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:00 pm
- Location: Braunschweig, Germany
- Contact:
Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread
Yes, that is exactly how it is claimed to work. As you have indicated, neither the absence of /p'/ nor the non-occurrence of two ejectives in a single root is true of most languages with ejectives. Most Caucasian languages, for instance, have /p'/, and at least some of them allow two ejectives in a root. (I think I have seen such roots in Kartvelian - the family adduced most commonly as a model for "Glottalist PIE" - but I am not sure.) It is also not certain that PIE indeed lacked */b/. There are indeed not many words with it, and most of them have some etymological problems (such as an areally skewed distribution, e.g. *h2abl- 'apple' which occurs only in Celtic, Germanic and Balto-Slavic), but it is far from certain that all items with */b/ are spurious!Sleinad Flar wrote:The glottalic theory (see wikipedia) attempts to explain the (almost) non-existence of /b/ and root structure (as well as stuff like Grimm's Law in Germanic and Armenian). IIRC the voiceless/voiced/aspirated becomes voiceless/ejective/voiced. Ejective /p'/ is apparently hard to pronounce [citation needed] and the root constraints seem to be typologically plausible in languages with such a glottalic system [citation needed].
The non-co-occurrence of voiceless and voiced-aspirated stops in roots would then simply be the output of a voicing assimilation rule which would only apply to pulmonic stops.
Another glottalist argument is that allegedly, breathy-voiced stops never occur without voiceless aspirated stops, and that the traditional model of PIE was therefore typologically bizarre. But such stops are generally almost vanishingly rare in the world's languages outside Indo-Aryan, and it has been claimed that counterexamples have been found (about which I don't know, however).
It tells a lot that after a vivid discussion in the 1970s, most Indo-Europeanists now feel that there is no need for such a hypothesis.
Wherein we hit upon another "problematic" PIE phoneme, */a/. Many instances can be explained away by way of laryngeals; some others have limited distribution and may be loanwords; but there are quite a few items which do not easily admit to such explanations.Sleinad Flar wrote:h4 is an a-coloring laryngeal, which is reconstructed in places were Hittite doesn't preserve the laryngeal. In contrast, the other a-coloring laryngeal h2 is preserved in Hittite. To put it in another way: *h2e becomes ha and *h4e becomes a in Hittite. (I've also seen ha in reconstructions, when the nature of the a-coloring laryngeal is uncertain, because the word isn't preserved in Anatolian). Personally I think reconstructing this extra laryngeal is unnecessary: *h4e might as well be *h1a or even simply *a.
Often, yes; but */h/ is also often assumed. Anything that just cleanly goes away without affecting neighbouring vowelsSleinad Flar wrote:I'm not going to touch the phonetic values of the other laryngeals, but h1 is usually assumed to be the glottal stop.
...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
- ObsequiousNewt
- Avisaru
- Posts: 434
- Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 5:05 pm
- Location: /ˈaɪ̯əwʌ/
Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread
Wait, I thought *eh₁ gave *ē?WeepingElf wrote:Often, yes; but */h/ is also often assumed. Anything that just cleanly goes away without affecting neighbouring vowelsSleinad Flar wrote:I'm not going to touch the phonetic values of the other laryngeals, but h1 is usually assumed to be the glottal stop.
퇎
Ο ορανς τα ανα̨ριθομον ϝερρον εͱεν ανθροποτροφον.
Το̨ ανθροπς αυ̨τ εκψον επ αθο̨ οραναμο̨ϝον.
Θαιν. Θαιν. Θαιν. Θαιν. Θαιν. Θαιν. Θαιν.
Ο ορανς τα ανα̨ριθομον ϝερρον εͱεν ανθροποτροφον.
Το̨ ανθροπς αυ̨τ εκψον επ αθο̨ οραναμο̨ϝον.
Θαιν. Θαιν. Θαιν. Θαιν. Θαιν. Θαιν. Θαιν.
- WeepingElf
- Smeric
- Posts: 1630
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:00 pm
- Location: Braunschweig, Germany
- Contact:
Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread
Of course. But the quality of the vowel is unaffected, in contrast to the other laryngeals.ObsequiousNewt wrote:Wait, I thought *eh₁ gave *ē?WeepingElf wrote:Often, yes; but */h/ is also often assumed. Anything that just cleanly goes away without affecting neighbouring vowelsSleinad Flar wrote:I'm not going to touch the phonetic values of the other laryngeals, but h1 is usually assumed to be the glottal stop.
...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
- Drydic
- Smeric
- Posts: 1652
- Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2002 12:23 pm
- Location: I am a prisoner in my own mind.
- Contact:
Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread
That's still affecting the vowel...WeepingElf wrote:Of course. But the quality of the vowel is unaffected, in contrast to the other laryngeals.ObsequiousNewt wrote:Wait, I thought *eh₁ gave *ē?WeepingElf wrote:Often, yes; but */h/ is also often assumed. Anything that just cleanly goes away without affecting neighbouring vowelsSleinad Flar wrote:I'm not going to touch the phonetic values of the other laryngeals, but h1 is usually assumed to be the glottal stop.
- WeepingElf
- Smeric
- Posts: 1630
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:00 pm
- Location: Braunschweig, Germany
- Contact:
Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread
Sure it is. I worded wrongly; should have written, "... without affecting the quality of neighbouring vowels".Nessari wrote:That's still affecting the vowel...WeepingElf wrote:Of course. But the quality of the vowel is unaffected, in contrast to the other laryngeals.ObsequiousNewt wrote:Wait, I thought *eh₁ gave *ē?WeepingElf wrote:Often, yes; but */h/ is also often assumed. Anything that just cleanly goes away without affecting neighbouring vowelsSleinad Flar wrote:I'm not going to touch the phonetic values of the other laryngeals, but h1 is usually assumed to be the glottal stop.
...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
- 2+3 clusivity
- Avisaru
- Posts: 454
- Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:34 pm
Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread
What's up with the 1st.sing.nom pronoun? It seems to fit oddly into the pronoun paradigm. For roughly the same reason, what is up with the /*s/ of the masc. and fem. 3d.sing.nom v. /*t/.
linguoboy wrote:So that's what it looks like when the master satirist is moistened by his own moutarde.
- WeepingElf
- Smeric
- Posts: 1630
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:00 pm
- Location: Braunschweig, Germany
- Contact:
Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread
I think there is no definite answer yet. 1sg. nom. *h1eǵoh2 may once have been a verb form meaning something like 'I am here'. Note that in a language like PIE that inflects its verb for the person and number of the subject and may have been a pro-drop language, nominative pronouns had an emphatic function and can therefore be expected to be irregular.2+3 clusivity wrote:What's up with the 1st.sing.nom pronoun? It seems to fit oddly into the pronoun paradigm. For roughly the same reason, what is up with the /*s/ of the masc. and fem. 3d.sing.nom v. /*t/.
The distinction between */s/ and */t/ in the 3rd person pronouns may have once been an animate/inanimate suppletivism (note that neuter form has */t/ in the nom.sg. as well), but why then did the inanimate forms invade the animate paradigm?
...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
- Particles the Greek
- Lebom
- Posts: 181
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 1:48 am
- Location: Between clauses
Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread
Here's something which concerns me. Some sources - Beekes for example - deny the existence of /a/ in PIE, and many deny /b/ also. Szemerényi mentions that the existence of /c/ (an affricate more commonly known as /ts/) has been tried to be proved and failed. Next up for removal is presumably /d/. So, how long will it be before PIEists eventually work their way through the entire alphabet and conclude that PIE had no phonemes at all?
Non fidendus est crocodilus quis posteriorem dentem acerbum conquetur.
- Herr Dunkel
- Smeric
- Posts: 1088
- Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 3:21 pm
- Location: In this multiverse or another
Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread
Lies. It had /ʔ ʕ ʢ ɰ ɲ ʀ/ and probably also /ɶ ɞ/araceli wrote:Here's something which concerns me. Some sources - Beekes for example - deny the existence of /a/ in PIE, and many deny /b/ also. Szemerényi mentions that the existence of /c/ (an affricate more commonly known as /ts/) has been tried to be proved and failed. Next up for removal is presumably /d/. So, how long will it be before PIEists eventually work their way through the entire alphabet and conclude that PIE had no phonemes at all?
sano wrote:To my dearest Darkgamma,
http://www.dazzlejunction.com/greetings/thanks/thank-you-bear.gif
Sincerely,
sano
-
- Avisaru
- Posts: 593
- Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2013 3:03 pm
- Location: Nijmegen, Netherlands
Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread
Obviously it wasn't a spoken language, and thus not a language with phonemes.araceli wrote:So, how long will it be before PIEists eventually work their way through the entire alphabet and conclude that PIE had no phonemes at all?
-
- Avisaru
- Posts: 734
- Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 1:47 pm
- Location: Leiden, the Netherlands
Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread
PIE was not a language.
- Herr Dunkel
- Smeric
- Posts: 1088
- Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 3:21 pm
- Location: In this multiverse or another
Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread
Well, talk now goes it was a dialect continuum, so no it wasn't a single language it seems.
sano wrote:To my dearest Darkgamma,
http://www.dazzlejunction.com/greetings/thanks/thank-you-bear.gif
Sincerely,
sano
- Drydic
- Smeric
- Posts: 1652
- Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2002 12:23 pm
- Location: I am a prisoner in my own mind.
- Contact:
Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread
It would've been if it'd had a navy.sirdanilot wrote:PIE was not a language.
Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread
What do you mean by this statement? Are you being facetious or do you have some specific opinions on the matter?sirdanilot wrote:PIE was not a language.
vec
Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread
So I'm doing a short bibliography project for my intro linguistics course, and I've chosen Indo-European stuff as my topic. One of the articles I'm reviewing is by a fellow named Beckwith, who has titled his work On the Indo-European Obstruent System. The board won't let me attach the pdf, but the basic gist of his argument is that the usual division of T vs. D vs. Dʰ is untenable, even going so far as to state that
Which is news to me! Beckwith argues that when the traditionalists argue that the three-way distinction of voiceless vs. voiced vs. voiced aspirated is maintained by Germanic, Italic, Greek and Indic, while the voiced and voiced aspirates collapse together in Celtic, Balto-Slavic and Iranian, they've got it backwards- in point of fact there was a two-way voiced vs. voiceless distinction, and the former group of languages actually innovated an aspirated/breathy-voiced series from an allophonic distinction later on. This does have the convenient advantage that it explains, kind of, the weird constraints on roots that disallow formations like **deg- or **dʰek-, as well as the near-absence of /b/. He's not very clear on just what the conditions were for the phonemicization of the aspirated stops were, though, and the whole thing just plain strikes me as really unlikely. (He also doesn't reconstruct a palatovelar or labiovelar series of stops). I can send the PDF to anyone who wants a look-through- but what's going on here?Moreover, the traditional three-way phoneme system - unvoiced unaspirate : voiced unaspirate : voiced aspirate - is not merely unnatural, it seems to be unattested in any known language, as noted by Jakobson in 1958 (Miller 1977). Nearly everyone now agrees that it is wrong. (italics mine)
- Nortaneous
- Sumerul
- Posts: 4544
- Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 1:52 am
- Location: the Imperial Corridor
Re: The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread
how does that explain the near-absence of /b/? does he say it all shifted to bh or?
Siöö jandeng raiglin zåbei tandiüłåd;
nää džunnfin kukuch vklaivei sivei tåd.
Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei.
nää džunnfin kukuch vklaivei sivei tåd.
Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei.