Re: Nostratic (was Re: Schwebeablaut (was Re: tolkien?))

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 15:38:20 +0100, Jörg Rhiemeier
<joerg_rhiemeier@...> wrote:
>>      If we presume that the original root was
>> *layakWa, penultimate accent and vowel-reduction would have given
>> *lyakW. But that form is clearly not the root for PIE; is it possible
>> that *laikW was reached via metathesis?
>
> Why not posit *likWa?  The problem arises only because you insist
> on a one-vowel system ***which is not attested in any language***.
I have half a mind to invent a zero-vowel conlang, where only the
consonants are phonemic.  Vowels would arise in descendents because
anaptyctic schwas would naturally appear, and a uniform stress may or may
not arise... analogy might put vowels in places where they wouldnt have
been expected to begin with.

>> >> PIE was fairly lenient on consonant clusters.
>> >
>> >Which suggests that quite a number of vowels were lost.
>>
>> Exactly.  Furthermore, there are apparently many instances of the
>> cluster -tk- in PIE.  Another language group with this feature is
>> Kartvelian.
>
> Yes.  Paul Bennett goes as far as positing a series of dental-velar
> doubly articulated stops (i.e., treating *tk as monophonemic),
> but that is untenable because forms with *tk- are zero grades,
> alternating with *tek-.
No... *tk^eH1- "gain control, erwerben" and *tk^ey- "dwell" are full
roots, with separate o- and zero-grades (*tkoy-mo- > Gmc *haimaz 'home',
*tk^ey- > Ved kṣéti "dwells", *tki-teH2- > Gk κτίτης).

And where does the full grade of *H2r=tk^os "bear" go?

The voiced version of *tk^, (*dhg^h) also appears in full roots, *dhg^hem-
"earth", *dhg^hu:- "fish", *dhg^hes- "yesterday".


        *Muke!
--
http://frath.net/                  E jer savne zarjé mas ne
http://kohath.livejournal.com/     Se imné koone'f metha
http://kohath.deviantart.com/      Brissve mé kolé adâ.

Replies