Re: Evidence for Nostratic? (was Re: Proto-Uralic?)

From: "Rob Haden" <magwich78@...>
> >I don't believe in a monovocalic system at any point of PIE's prehistory.
> >While there are instances of /i/ and /u/ that arose from syllabic
> semivowels,
> >there must have been /i/ and /u/ in pre-ablaut PIE.  I also think that
> these
> >took part in ablaut, being diphthongized to /ai/ > /ei/ and /au/ > /eu/
> >in full grade.
>
> While /ai/ > /ei/ seems realistic to me, /au/ > /eu/ does not.  The problem
> is solved if you have /aya/ > /ey/ and /awa/ > /eu/.
There's nothing wrong with /au/ > /eu/ (it is after all parallel to /ai/ >
/ei/)... doesnt something like that happen in some Southern [American] dialects?

> Latin has pes, pedis; Greek has
> pous, podos.  These point to a problem with current reconstructed PIE: what
> was the original genitive suffix, *-es or *-os?  Perhaps we can find the
> answer to this question.
>
> One thing that I did find out is that there might be a way to reconcile
> Latin and Greek disparate genitive forms.  First, we must assume that PIE
> originally had a stress-accent system that fell regularly on the penultima,
> and that that system was subsequently abandoned.  We must then assume that
> either Proto-Italic or Proto-Hellenic separated from the rest of PIE before
> a new accent scheme was finalized.
The original genitive of *pod- "foot" though is generally reconstructed as
_monosyllabic_ (with zero-grade of the root) though, so the position of the
stress cant exactly be an issue in *pdós/*pdés (whichever it may have been).

> >This is the first time I see the PIE word for "name" reconstructed
> >with an initial *g.  So far I thought the initial consonant was *h3
> >(/x^w/).
>
> That's an idea of my own.  It seems logical that a root *gno- 'know' (more
> likely 'be acquainted with'), when coupled with an extension *-men, which
> was some sort of abstract suffix, that a word with a meaning akin to 'name'
> would result.  But perhaps I am wrong (it won't be the first time!).
Note that Watkins reconstructs "name" as *H1noH3-mn=, *H1nH3-men-, as apparently
some Greek forms point to an original e- instead of the o- seen in <onoma>.
(Also, if 'name' ablauts... isnt 'know' a Narten non-ablauting root?  I'm not
sure of that.)

Also you'd have to explain how *gno:- would change the *g just for "name" and
remain in all other forms (English kn-, Greek gn-, Skt jñ-, Slavic zn-)...

> >Which Greek forms have /x/ > /h/?  What I know from Greek is
> >*h1 > e, *h2 > a, *h3 > o in initial position before a consonant,
> >and in forms with syllabic laryngeals.
>
> Sorry, that must be my mistake, then.
It's Indo-Iranian where *H2 becomes h--not directly, but it causes aspiration in
conjunction with stops:  *sti-stH2-enti > tis.t.hanti

    *Muke!
--
http://frath.net/