--- In cybalist@y..., Piotr Gasiorowski <piotr.gasiorowski@i...>
wrote:
> You're right of course, Peter, but we discussed the <il.-> root on
the list some time ago, also in response to Dr Kalyanaraman's query,
so I just wonder why he should ask twice only to get the same
answers. It's far less trouble to check the archives.
>
> Piotr

Alas, he would have had to search his own memory, unless you know a
good way to search the archives.  I searched for 'il.-' and only
found 'NACHRICHTEN DER AKADEMIE DER WISSENSCHAFTEN IN
GOETTINGEN. Phil.-hist. Klasse'.  My search for 'allah' (lowercase
because few subscribers enjoy the luxury of an English spell-checker)
yielded many instances of Allahabad and Sammallahti.  The only
reference to 'Allah' I found was in a discussion of creation myths.

I searched via the 'search' button while reading the list archive.
If anyone knows a better way, please advise!  I myself have already
asked about labiovelars because I did not find an earlier discussion
which had addressed their articulatory realisation.

Richard.

does anyone have any information on obscure ancient languages such as
Kaskian, Mysian, Gutian, and the Lullubi tribes?

----- Original Message -----

From: Danny Wier

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2002 5:41 AM

Subject: Re: [tied] god

It's related to Modern Persian |xodâ|, which is found in Urdu as |xudâ|. I don't think it's cognate with the Germanic word. (Both Persian |xodâ| and the Arabic loan |?allâh| are used interchangeably, with the latter being a more "sacred" usage than the former.)

 

What's the Old Persian/Avestan word, by the way?

 

~Danny~

While on the Subject, can someone explain 'Ghuda' as a Word for God in Punjabi?

 

Carl

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Two announcements which touch many IE bases.

1. Title of an article by S. Kalyanaraman in: World Affairs, The
Journal of International Issues, Vol. 6, No. 1, January-March 2002
worldaffairs@... The blurb: For centuries scholars have traced
the Rig Vedic linkages of the river Sarasvati. Today there are
overwhelming historical, archaeological and satellite surveys tracing
the points of origin, flow and entire journey to the Arabian Sea. The
Sarasvati presents some new insights into the flow of Indian history
and culture and the contribution of this river to this process.

2. Members are welcome to the WAVES international conference in
UMass, Dartmouth between July 12 to 14, 2002:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aoiscn/files/waves_conference.html

Regards.

--- In cybalist@y..., "Danny Wier" <dawier@h...> wrote:
> According to the American Heritage Dictionary (online):
English "god" and German "Gott" came from IE *gheu(@)-, "to call,
invoke", suffixed zero-grade form *ghu-to-, "the invoked (one)".
Pokorny's root is *g^hau- (#413). ~DaW~

Thanks a lot, Danny. God has complex roots in the mists of language!

Could the IE *gheu- be cognate with Vedic.

hve- (a phoneme which occurs in a score of Sanskrit lexemes, e.g.
hava_mahe, juhve...)> hve = to call , call upon , summon ,
challenge , invoke (R.gveda).

In Tamil, the root is iku- as in: iku-ttal = to call, invite.

An online Sûdovian (Yatvingian) dictionary
at http://www.suduva.com/virdainas/ gives
"(en) spaliskai" with the meaning "(in)
Ossetian".  This word doesn't contain
the usual 'os(s)-', or '(j)as-' element.
Can anybody explain the 'spal-' here?

David

--- In cybalist@y..., "wtsdv" <liberty@p...> wrote:
> An online Sûdovian (Yatvingian) dictionary
> at http://www.suduva.com/virdainas/ gives
> "(en) spaliskai" with the meaning "(in)
> Ossetian".  This word doesn't contain
> the usual 'os(s)-', or '(j)as-' element.
> Can anybody explain the 'spal-' here?
>
> David

The dictionary you cite is a piece of science fiction. As is commonly
known, _no_ Yatvingian (aka Sudovian aka Dainavian) texts have been
discovered yet, and even the status of the "Yatvingian language" is
still discussed (an Old Prussian dialect? a separate West (aka
periferal) Baltic language? some special language, "transitional"
between Baltic and Slavic languages?). Some _very_ tentative and
rather unreliable guesses on the (mostly morphophonological)
structure of the language which have been made by now are based
mostly on the material provided by some southern Lithunian dialects,
presumably influenced by Yatvingian, and on the toponymy (like
_Garbu`s_ 'name of a hill in southern Lithuania', on which base
Yatvingian *garbu`s 'hill' is reconstructed [cf. Old Prussian *garbis
'id.']; the word probably undelies my mother's maiden name --
_Garbus_, so I can afford to "feel Yatvingian" when I need to :) ).


As to the *spal-, it's sometimes hard to understand the logic of the
authos working in the field of science fiction. Probably Jordanes'
_Spali_ (Getica, 28) and/or Plinius' _Spalaei_ (Naturalis Historia,
6, 22) gave some food for his imagination. Cf. also Old Church Slavic
_spolU_, Church Slavic _ispolinU_ 'giant', Old Polish _stolim_ 'id.'.

By the way, the pseudo-Old Prussian construction _en spaliskai_ 'in
Ossetian' is just grammatically incorrect if supposed to mean 'in
Ossetian language'. The only correct variant would be _spaliskai_
(cf. Old Prussian _pru:siskai_ 'in Prussian (language)'; _en
spaliskai_ would be either agrammatical (if _spaliskai_ is supposed
to be an adverb, thus 'in in Ossetic'), or would mean 'in Ossetic
(land etc, rather than language)' (if _spaliskai_ is supposed to be
the dative of an adjective *spaliska: 'Ossetic (f.)', since _en_ +
dative has illative meaning in Old Prussian).

Sergei

--- In cybalist@y..., "tarasovass" <tarasovass@y...> wrote:
>
> The dictionary you cite is a piece of science fiction. As is
> commonly known, _no_ Yatvingian (aka Sudovian aka Dainavian)
> texts have been discovered yet, and even the status of the
> "Yatvingian language" is still discussed (an Old Prussian
> dialect? a separate West (aka periferal) Baltic language?
> some special language, "transitional" between Baltic and
> Slavic languages?).

Thank you, and how disturbing!  Nowhere on the site can I find
a disclaimer.  I guess this is another one to add to the list
of looney sites.  You know they say they're a member of the I.E.
database.

> Some _very_ tentative and rather unreliable guesses on the
> (mostly morphophonological) structure of the language which
> have been made by now are based mostly on the material provided
> by some southern Lithunian dialects, presumably influenced by
> Yatvingian, and on the toponymy ...

So then I guess that this "dictionary" is someone's attempted
reconstruction of Yatvingian.  It also says at the site "Sudovian
is the language of immense forests, long rivers, and the friendly
people of Sûdavâ. It is living. It is, here."  I was all ready
to pack and book my flight! :-(

David

--- In cybalist@y..., "wtsdv" <liberty@p...> wrote:

> Thank you, and how disturbing!  Nowhere on the site can I find
> a disclaimer.  I guess this is another one to add to the list
> of looney sites.  You know they say they're a member of the I.E.
> database.
> ...
> So then I guess that this "dictionary" is someone's attempted
> reconstruction of Yatvingian.

Yes, exactly. It's a fiction, but indeed a _science_ one -- the
reconstruction is not unprofessional, but it's still a
reconstruction, mostly based on a slightly transformed Old Prussian
grammar (or, more precisely, one of the versions of this grammar's
reconstruction), plus Old Prussian, Lithuanian (and probably Latvian,
AFAI can see) lexical material. I guess it was made in wake of Letas
Palmaitis' _A New Prussian Grammar_, which was written as a handbook
for those enthusiasts who would like to speak in New (Old) Prussian
to each other.

> It also says at the site "Sudovian
> is the language of immense forests, long rivers, and the friendly
> people of Sûdavâ. It is living. It is, here."  I was all ready
> to pack and book my flight! :-(
>
> David

It would take a time machine, not just a conventional plane, as
Yatvingian is supposed to die out ca. 1600, but a lingvo-sentimental
journey to Lithuania is worth it, anyway -- as Meillet said, 'if you
want to know how our ancestors spoke, come to Lithuania and listen to
local peasants'. Lithuanian peasants are up and living, and the
historical areas of Dainava and partly Su:dava are in southern
Lithuania (though Yatvingians also used to live in what is now
northern Belarussia and south-western Poland).

Sergei

Dear List members,

A rejoinder to Professor Witzel's article '"A Maritime Rigveda? How
not to read the Ancient Texts" (The Hindu, 25 June 2002) has been now
published by Sri David Frawley.

The title of the rejoinder is "WITZEL'S VANISHING OCEAN – HOW TO READ
VEDIC TEXTS ANY WAY YOU LIKE" and it is available at

1. HTML version

http://www.bharatvani.org/davidfrawley/ReplytoWitzel.html

2. Downloadable Word document (29 pages long) at

http://www.bharatvani.org/davidfrawley/ReplytoWitzel.doc

The article has a long appendix, which is chapter VIII of his recent
book "Rigveda and the History of India".

Sincerely,

Vishal Agarwal

--- In cybalist@y..., "wtsdv" <liberty@p...> wrote:
> --- In cybalist@y..., "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@h...> wrote:
> >
> > Personally, <xs^aþiya-> gives me orgasmic delight. But that's
> > just me.
>
> Now that's my kind of man!  Call me up some time and I'll
> recite the Ossetian tale of "Æxsar and Æxsærtæg" to you.
>
> David

Any language with æ in it can't be all bad.

But come to think of it, the Avestan word I should have been thinking
of was <fs^umans-> "having much cattle" (<- PIE *peku-), which would
tempt (pre-proto-Germanic) camp followers to say (proto-Germanic)
*fehu- (I know of course p->f is restricted to some enviroments in
Iranian etc etc).

Torsten

> But come to think of it, the Avestan word I should have been
thinking
> of was <fs^umans-> "having much cattle" (<- PIE *peku-), which
would
> tempt (pre-proto-Germanic) camp followers to say (proto-Germanic)
> *fehu- (I know of course p->f is restricted to some enviroments in
> Iranian etc etc).
>
> Torsten

Some more ideas (can't help myself):

Someone once claimed that the concept  of "mark" was a common
Germanic idea, the actual manifestations of which were the American
Frontier, the Irish Pale, the Ostmark and Mark Brandenburg against
the Slavs etc; the area-which-is-about-to-become-ours (and normal
laws don't apply). In which case the name Marcomanni is apt around 0
CE since they just colonized Bohemia (*Boio-haim-, get it?) away from
the Celtic Boii. And if they were the same colonizers that colonized
Denmark, that would explain the occurrence of -mark in that latter
name, which always puzzled me: a <-mark>, a frontier, smack dab in
the middle of Germanic-speaking territory?
Now we know who were the colonizers, who were the colonized? Going by
the words <Finn-mark>, <Lap-mark>, in which the name of the colonized
is the first member of the compound, I'd say the colonized were the
Danes (but I'm open to suggestions!), a collective terms for those
(Celtic?) tribes that had invaded the area 500 years earlier, since
the came from Tanais(?).

Torsten

--- In cybalist@y..., "vishalsagarwal" <vishalagarwal@h...> wrote:
> Dear List members,
>
> A rejoinder to Professor Witzel's article '"A Maritime Rigveda? How
> not to read the Ancient Texts" (The Hindu, 25 June 2002) has been
now
> published by Sri David Frawley.
>
> The title of the rejoinder is "WITZEL'S VANISHING OCEAN – HOW TO
READ
> VEDIC TEXTS ANY WAY YOU LIKE" and it is available at
>
> 1. HTML version
>
> http://www.bharatvani.org/davidfrawley/ReplytoWitzel.html
>
> 2. Downloadable Word document (29 pages long) at
>
> http://www.bharatvani.org/davidfrawley/ReplytoWitzel.doc
>
> The article has a long appendix, which is chapter VIII of his
recent
> book "Rigveda and the History of India".
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Vishal Agarwal

From the recesses of my memory comes Paul Benedict: Proto-Austronesian
(?)(-Austric?): *boRats- "rice" (-> Sanskrit <vrihi> "rice") Please
don't kill me for any inaccuracies, I can't locate a reference now.
Bur compare this to various glosses in

http://www.angelfire.com/rant/tgpedersen/Opr.html

among them:

"
HSED 224:
   *bar-/*bur-         "grain, cereal"                   Semitic

   *barr-/*burr-                                         Semitic
   burru               "cereal"                          Akkadian
   bar                 "cereal"                          Hebrew
   ba:r                "cereal"                          Hebrew
   burr-               "wheat"                           Arabic
   br                  "wheat"                           South Arabian
   bor                 "wheat"                           Soqotri
   barr                "wheat"                           Mehri
   barr                "wheat"                           S^h.eri

   *bVr-                                                 Berber
   a-Bar-&n            "flour"                           Ghadames
   &Br-u:n             "sorghum"                         Awjila
   a-bora              "sorghum"                         Ayr
   a-bo:ra             "sorghum"                         Ahaggar
   a-bo:ra             "sorghum"                         Tawlemmet
   bu:ru               "bread"                           Zenaga

   *bar-/*bur-                                           West Chadic
   biri                "kind of flour"                   Hausa
   with assimilation of vowels >
   buri                "kind of flour"                   Hausa
   redupl.
   barbari             "gruel"                           Ngizim

   *bar-/bur-                                            East Chadic
   bura                "flour"                           Sumray
   bar^                "flour"                           Tumak
   derivative with *ku-
   ku-b&ra             "flour"                           Kabalay
   ku-bra              "kind of millet"                  Lele

   *bur-               "groats"                          Agaw
   bura                "groats"                          Xamir

   *bur-               "wheat"                           Lowland
                                                         East Cushitic
   bur                 "wheat"                           Somali

   b.uru               "maize"                           Dahalo

   *bar-               "grain"                           Rift
   baru                "grain"                           Burunge

HSED 1983:
   *pir-               "fruit, corn"

   *pir-               "fruit"                           Semitic
   pr                  "fruit"                           Phoenician
   pr                  "fruit"                           Ugaritic
   p&ri:               "fruit"                           Hebrew
   pe:ra:              "fruit"                           Syrian Aramaic
   f&re                "fruit"                           Geez
   cf.
   ferra:t             "unripe fruit"                    Harsusi
   ferra:t             "unripe fruit"                    Mehri
   ferrot              "unripe fruit"                    S^h.eri

   *far-               "corn"                            Berber
   a-faro              "corn"                            Guanche
     The vocalisation may reflect a different alternation grade.

   pr.t                "fruit, crop, seed"               Egyptian
                                                         (Old Kingdom)

   *fir-                                                 Agaw
   fir                 "fruit"                           Bilin
   fira                "fruit"                           Xamir
   fira                "fruit"                           Kwara
   fira                "fruit"                           Demben
   fir                 "corn"                            Kemant

   *fir-               "fireworm, fruit"                 Saho-Afar
   fire                "fireworm, fruit"                 Saho

   *fir-               "fruit"                           Lowland
                                                         East Cushitic
   firi                "fruit"                           Oromo

"

see also similar IE words for "sprout, bloom etc" in IE languages.
HSED   V. E. Orel &
        O. V. Stolbova    Hamito-Semitic Etymological Dictionary
                          E. J. Brill 1995

Torsten

In the _Elements of Indo-European Phonology_ published on the TITUS'
website (http://titus.fkidg1.uni-frankfurt.de/didact/idg/idgphon.htm)
*h3 is ascribed a phonetic value of [voiced faryngeal fricative], and
it's stated there, that it therefore can trigger regressive
assimilation, switching a preceding voiceless consonant to its voiced
allophone. Thus, it's stated, that the cluster /ph3/ phonetically
surfaces as [b`] in the same manner as /pd/ surfaced as [bd]; the
examples provided include 3 pl. present of the drink-verb,
reconstructed there as *piph3enti [pib`onti], allegedly continued in
OInd. _pibanti_, Lat. _bibunt_, OIr. _ibat_ and *h2eph3o:n [hab`o:n]
'watery' (N.sg), continued in OIr. _aub_.

That raises a lot of questions.
1. Is anybody on the list aware of other examples, both pro and
contra?
2. If Piotr's treatment of the drink-verb
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/7986, also
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/7968) is correct,
*piph3enti is an impossible form, the correct form being *pipiHenti
(since 1. the root would be *peiH- rather that *peH- + *-i-; 2. the
exact quality of the laryngeal is unknown, since -o- in forms like
*po:- and *poi- is accounted for by the qualitative ablaut rather
than the o-colouring laryngeal; 3. the word looks like an athematic
intensive from athematic *peiH-/*poiH- formed by "i-grade
reduplication").
But then, I with my rather dilettanticly straightforward way of
thinking can't see how *pipiHenti would account for, say, OInd.
_pibanti_ and Lat. _bibunt_. Why _b_, indeed? Why Latin -unt- in case
the laryngeal is not restricted to *h3?
And, last not least, why *piHV- > *pV? One would expect *pijV- (if
from *pi.HV-) or at least *pjV- (if from tautosyllabic *piHV-, this
would assume the sonority of the laryngeal to be greater than that of
*i [j].

Sergei

You are right, Sergei, the "drink" word is the only evidence (as far as I
know) for the voiced character of h3, and there are so many problems with
that root that its evidence must treated with a great deal of caution!

It seems reasonable that PIE might have had a voiced laryngeal corresponding
to the unvoiced h1 and h2.  I think this also persuades some people that h3
was the voiced equivalent of h2, but this is hardly evidence.  Others (e.g.
Beekes) think that it was a labialised version of h2 (to explain the /o/
vocalism).   H3 is in any case less common than h1 and h2, and the evidence
for it is not nearly as clear.

I won't go into other possible phonetic values of the laryngeals - there's
good discussion of it all in the archives - if you can find it.

Peter

Dear Sergejaus and List,

I believe I answered this some years ago. The root 'drink' is indeed
*peH3y- and alternates accordingly, e.g., 3sg aor. *poH3-t (Skt. á-pa:t),
caus. *poH3y-éye-ti (pa:yáyati) with retention of -y- before a vowel and
loss in the environment VH_C# (and VH_CC). To go with the root aorist
there was a reduplicated present, of which píbati etc. is properly the
refashioned subjunctive. The old injunctive would be 3sg *pi-péH3y-t >
*pi-póH3-t, 3pl *pé-pH3y-nt > *pé-pH3-n.t (the last form with y > zero in
CH_CC, processed before full syllabification of the sonant, as general
for these rules). The injunctive was now structured exactly like, say,
*dhi-dhéH1-t, 3pl *dhé-dhH1-n.t and then formed its subjunctive the same
way, which seems to have been *dhí-dhH1-e-t(i), cf. Skt. dádhati (with
analogical e-reduplication from dádha:ti, witness the general type
tís.t.hati, sí:dati etc. which must come from somewhere). For this verb,
the form would be *pí-pH3-e-t(i), whence PIE *píbeti. The easiest way out
is to consider the change pH3 > b older than laryngeal coloration, in
which case /-be-/ offers no problem.
    The Greek aorist épion is of the type élipon, i.e. based on the
zero-grade with thematic inflection, in this case *pH3i-e/o-. The
structural basis of this stem type was no doubt the old 3sg middle of the
root-aorist, utilized as the stem of a thematic inflection which was
subsequently made active, i.e. 3sg mid. "*pH3i-é" -> 3sg act.
"*pH3i-é-t".  However, with this specific verb, it is probably better to
depart from the 3pl root aor. *pH3i-ént assuming this structure to have
been transferred to the *wid-é-t/*wid-ó-nt model.
     I have difficulties with OCS piti, which has an aorist 2/3sg pi. The
easy way out is perhaps simple levelling of the aorist paradigm *po:-t /
*pi(y)-ent to *pi:-t by generalization of the vowel timbre of the weak
forms. That would avoid a clash with Skt. ápa:t. The infinitive will then
be analogical as aor. by : inf. byti = aor. pi : inf. x, x = piti
(including the accent which is circumflex on by and pi, but acute on byti
and piti). The old full-grade aorist /po:-/ must underlie OPruss poieiti
2pl ipv. 'drink ye' and the inf. pou:ton, making the Slavic levelling a
post-Proto-BSl. event. Slavic went further and introduced /pi:-/ into the
present as well, 3sg pi-je-tU (acute on -i-, cf. Lith. stó-ju for the
type).
    I don't know where that leaves /H3/ phonetically, except that it must
have been voiced and relatively weakly articulated after a stop when the
change occurred. For other reasons I am more inclined to think along the
lines of a spirant labiovelar g, but of course only where it was
preserved.

Jens

On Sat, 6 Jul 2002, sergejus_tarasovas wrote:

> In the _Elements of Indo-European Phonology_ published on the TITUS'
> website (http://titus.fkidg1.uni-frankfurt.de/didact/idg/idgphon.htm)
> *h3 is ascribed a phonetic value of [voiced faryngeal fricative], and
> it's stated there, that it therefore can trigger regressive
> assimilation, switching a preceding voiceless consonant to its voiced
> allophone. Thus, it's stated, that the cluster /ph3/ phonetically
> surfaces as [b`] in the same manner as /pd/ surfaced as [bd]; the
> examples provided include 3 pl. present of the drink-verb,
> reconstructed there as *piph3enti [pib`onti], allegedly continued in
> OInd. _pibanti_, Lat. _bibunt_, OIr. _ibat_ and *h2eph3o:n [hab`o:n]
> 'watery' (N.sg), continued in OIr. _aub_.
>
> That raises a lot of questions.
> 1. Is anybody on the list aware of other examples, both pro and
> contra?
> 2. If Piotr's treatment of the drink-verb
> (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/7986, also
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/7968) is correct,
> *piph3enti is an impossible form, the correct form being *pipiHenti
> (since 1. the root would be *peiH- rather that *peH- + *-i-; 2. the
> exact quality of the laryngeal is unknown, since -o- in forms like
> *po:- and *poi- is accounted for by the qualitative ablaut rather
> than the o-colouring laryngeal; 3. the word looks like an athematic
> intensive from athematic *peiH-/*poiH- formed by "i-grade
> reduplication").
> But then, I with my rather dilettanticly straightforward way of
> thinking can't see how *pipiHenti would account for, say, OInd.
> _pibanti_ and Lat. _bibunt_. Why _b_, indeed? Why Latin -unt- in case
> the laryngeal is not restricted to *h3?
> And, last not least, why *piHV- > *pV? One would expect *pijV- (if
> from *pi.HV-) or at least *pjV- (if from tautosyllabic *piHV-, this
> would assume the sonority of the laryngeal to be greater than that of
> *i [j].
>
> Sergei
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>

Dear Jens,
thank you for the circumstantial responce. I would like to contribute
a bit more than just 'thank you' to the discussion, but your analysis
is too sophisticated for the amateur like me -- not to an extent that
I wouldn't follow (though the rule *y>0/{VH_C#,VH_CC} is something
new to me, as well as the switch from unstressed *i to stressed *e as
the reduplication vowel in the 3pl inj. *pé-pH3y-nt), but enough to
keep me from commenting. I would only like to note that the
analogical levelling proposed for Slavic seems a bit tricky to me,
especially considering deverbals like *pivo 'drink', *pijanU 'drunk'
and *pivIca 'drunkard', which don't look like recent formations.

Baltic (especially Old Prussian) indeed shows a strong support for
the *po:-, whatever be it's origin (though the accent is not very
clear):

OPruss. inf. (<sup.) _p(o)u:ton_, inf. _poutwei_, _pou:t_ 'to drink',
2pl imp. _poieiti_, _pogeitty_, _puieyti_, _puietti_ (lege  *puieyti),
2sg imp. _pogeis_.
On this base Maz^iulis reconstructs sup. *po:tun, inf. *po:t(wei)
(that's easy!) and 2pl imp. *po:jaiti, 2sg. imp. *po:jais resp. pres.
*po:ja- (he considers the imperative forms to be barytones, hence
unstressed *o: > unstressed *u: > (open) *u).

OPruss. _poadamynan_ 'süsse Milch', if from *po:dam-in-a- 'drinkable'
(with dialectal merger of *o: and *a: like in _da:t_ 'to give'),
would point to an alternative West Baltic pres. *po:da-, probably
from *po:- + *-da-, cf. Lith. _vérda_ 'is boiling'.

It's quite possible, that Lith. _puota`_ (acc. _puo~ta,_) 'feast'
also belongs here, if from deverb. adj. *po:ta: 'what is drunk' (with
acute->circumflex metatony, sometimes accompanying derivation adj. ->
subst.).

As to the phonetic status of *h3, I'm still not sure that this _only_
example envolving *peh3i- is enough to state it was voiced.

Sergei

--- In cybalist@y..., Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen <jer@c...> wrote:
> Dear Sergejaus and List,
>
> I believe I answered this some years ago. The root 'drink' is indeed
> *peH3y- and alternates accordingly, e.g., 3sg aor. *poH3-t (Skt. á-
pa:t),
> caus. *poH3y-éye-ti (pa:yáyati) with retention of -y- before a
vowel and
> loss in the environment VH_C# (and VH_CC). To go with the root
aorist
> there was a reduplicated present, of which píbati etc. is properly
the
> refashioned subjunctive. The old injunctive would be 3sg *pi-péH3y-
t >
> *pi-póH3-t, 3pl *pé-pH3y-nt > *pé-pH3-n.t (the last form with y >
zero in
> CH_CC, processed before full syllabification of the sonant, as
general
> for these rules). The injunctive was now structured exactly like,
say,
> *dhi-dhéH1-t, 3pl *dhé-dhH1-n.t and then formed its subjunctive the
same
> way, which seems to have been *dhí-dhH1-e-t(i), cf. Skt. dádhati
(with
> analogical e-reduplication from dádha:ti, witness the general type
> tís.t.hati, sí:dati etc. which must come from somewhere). For this
verb,
> the form would be *pí-pH3-e-t(i), whence PIE *píbeti. The easiest
way out
> is to consider the change pH3 > b older than laryngeal coloration,
in
> which case /-be-/ offers no problem.
>    The Greek aorist épion is of the type élipon, i.e. based on the
> zero-grade with thematic inflection, in this case *pH3i-e/o-. The
> structural basis of this stem type was no doubt the old 3sg middle
of the
> root-aorist, utilized as the stem of a thematic inflection which was
> subsequently made active, i.e. 3sg mid. "*pH3i-é" -> 3sg act.
> "*pH3i-é-t".  However, with this specific verb, it is probably
better to
> depart from the 3pl root aor. *pH3i-ént assuming this structure to
have
> been transferred to the *wid-é-t/*wid-ó-nt model.
>     I have difficulties with OCS piti, which has an aorist 2/3sg
pi. The
> easy way out is perhaps simple levelling of the aorist paradigm
*po:-t /
> *pi(y)-ent to *pi:-t by generalization of the vowel timbre of the
weak
> forms. That would avoid a clash with Skt. ápa:t. The infinitive
will then
> be analogical as aor. by : inf. byti = aor. pi : inf. x, x = piti
> (including the accent which is circumflex on by and pi, but acute
on byti
> and piti). The old full-grade aorist /po:-/ must underlie OPruss
poieiti
> 2pl ipv. 'drink ye' and the inf. pou:ton, making the Slavic
levelling a
> post-Proto-BSl. event. Slavic went further and introduced /pi:-/
into the
> present as well, 3sg pi-je-tU (acute on -i-, cf. Lith. stó-ju for
the
> type).
>    I don't know where that leaves /H3/ phonetically, except that it
must
> have been voiced and relatively weakly articulated after a stop
when the
> change occurred. For other reasons I am more inclined to think
along the
> lines of a spirant labiovelar g, but of course only where it was
> preserved.
>
> Jens

--- In cybalist@y..., "P&G" <petegray@b...> wrote:

> You are right, Sergei, the "drink" word is the only evidence (as
far as I
> know) for the voiced character of h3, and there are so many
problems with
> that root that its evidence must treated with a great deal of
caution!

Actually, they also mention *h2eph3o:n [hab`o:n]
'watery' (N.sg), allegedly continued in OIr. _aub_ on the TITUS, but
I can't verify its correctness and/or relevance.

> I won't go into other possible phonetic values of the laryngeals -
there's
> good discussion of it all in the archives - if you can find it.

I'll try if I think of appropriate keywords.

Sergei

Dear Sergei and List,

let me comment on your stimulating mail:

On Sun, 7 Jul 2002, sergejus_tarasovas wrote:

>
> [...] I would only like to note that the
> analogical levelling proposed for Slavic seems a bit tricky to me,
> especially considering deverbals like *pivo 'drink', *pijanU 'drunk'
> and *pivIca 'drunkard', which don't look like recent formations.

Then what *do* they look like? And if they are very old, how can we know
they have not been refashioned on the way? To me they look like
indications that there was a nucleus of truth to Martinet's notion of a
change H3 > w under unknown conditions in PIE. Of course, we'd need to
know what that nucleus was.

>
> Baltic (especially Old Prussian) indeed shows a strong support for
> the *po:-, whatever be it's origin (though the accent is not very
> clear):
>
> OPruss. inf. (<sup.) _p(o)u:ton_, inf. _poutwei_, _pou:t_ 'to drink',
> 2pl imp. _poieiti_, _pogeitty_, _puieyti_, _puietti_ (lege  *puieyti),
> 2sg imp. _pogeis_.
> On this base Maz^iulis reconstructs sup. *po:tun, inf. *po:t(wei)
> (that's easy!) and 2pl imp. *po:jaiti, 2sg. imp. *po:jais resp. pres.
> *po:ja- (he considers the imperative forms to be barytones, hence
> unstressed *o: > unstressed *u: > (open) *u).

You mean "non-barytones", as M. writes. That is contrary to Hirt's Law,
but still may be correct, if analogical, reflecting as it does a
productive stem-formation of younger reshaping.

> OPruss. _poadamynan_ 'süsse Milch', if from *po:dam-in-a- 'drinkable'
> (with dialectal merger of *o: and *a: like in _da:t_ 'to give'),
> would point to an alternative West Baltic pres. *po:da-, probably
> from *po:- + *-da-, cf. Lith. _vérda_ 'is boiling'.
>
> It's quite possible, that Lith. _puota`_ (acc. _puo~ta,_) 'feast'
> also belongs here, if from deverb. adj. *po:ta: 'what is drunk' (with
> acute->circumflex metatony, sometimes accompanying derivation adj. ->
> subst.).

Exactly! That's what nouns derived from adjectives by change of accent
placing get if they are formed in so late a period that there were no more
acutes to be handed out. It's all in the timing - that's why it hit the
Slavic loanwords also (kny~gaN and all that).

> As to the phonetic status of *h3, I'm still not sure that this _only_
> example envolving *peh3i- is enough to state it was voiced.

It's not based on this alone anymore. Most scholars however accept only
this item, or at most Hamp's brilliant analyis of Celtic *abon- 'river'
along with it, this being *H2ap-H3Vn- with the "Hoffmann suffix" of
belonging (actually a compositional part forming mass nouns, including
mass possession when they are bahuvrihis). By the change *-pH3- > -b- the
Celtic loss of *-p- (Skt.  gen. ap-ás, nom.pl. á:p-as) is prevented.
Birgit Olsen has found a rather substantial number of examples of
derivatives with this suffix which, when added to stems in -t- (or perhaps
better, in -s-/-t-), or to stems in -k- (in part from hardened
laryngeals), turn these into derivatives in *-don- and *-gon-
respectively; thus Latin de-adjectival abstracts in -tu:s, -tu:t-is have
synonyms in -tu:do:, -tu:dinis; and vora:x, -a:cis forms vora:go:,
-a:ginis. Particulars are on their way in the press, you'll have to wait a
litttle while. The new examples (some of which were in fact presented in
the Pedersen memorial volume of 1994) have extracted píbati and afon from
their isolation.

Jens

> does anyone have any information on obscure ancient languages such as
> Kaskian, Mysian, Gutian, and the Lullubi tribes?

Kaskian and also Hattic (the pre-Hittite language of Central Anatolia) are
now thought to have affinities with the North-West Caucasian Adyghe-Abkhaz
languages.  Research in this area has been carried out by Vladimir Ardzinba,
a native Abkhaz and president of the breakaway republic of Abkhazia. Another
prominent authority is Prof. George (B.G.) Hewitt, Professor of Caucasian
Languages at the London University School of Oriental and African Studies,
whose wife is a native Abkhaz.  He  edited a recent book 'The Abkhaz',
publ. by Curzon Press in 1999. A companion volume in the same series is
'The Circassians' by Amjad Jaimoukha. You will find references on the topic
you have raised in both of these titles.

Mysian is, I believe, another of the 'Anatolian' languages contemporary
with the later Hittite period. Luwian and Palaic are probably genetically
related
to Hittite. Mysian is thought to be related to Phrygian and Thracian, and
therefore
probably Indo-European (but I stand to be corrected on this). There is a very
good description of this areal grouping of ancient languages in 'The Hittites'
(Ch.6) by O.R. Gurney (1952), Penguin Books (reprinted in 1975 by Book Club
Associates).   However, Mysian is not mentioned in this work, as its speakers
arrived in Anatolia somewhat later than the Hittite period (nor is Kaskian,
though the Kaskian tribes located along the Pontic Coast of Anatolia, are
referred to as a constant irritant to the Hittite Empire).

I understand that Gutian is thought to have Indo-European affinities, but I
have no precise knowledge. Am I correct in thinking that the Guti originated
in the Zagros Mts. circa 1800 BCE?

Lullubi is new to me.  It too appears to have been located in the Northern
Zagros
region, with a connection to Luristan (the famous Luristan bronzes?).  I have
been
unable to trace its affinities.  It sounds as though it ought be related to
Subarean/
Hurrian/Urartian, but seems to be located too far to the south-east for that to
be
a likely connection.  Is there a possible link with Elamite (which is thought to
be
related to Dravidian and  the languages of the Indus Valley (Harrapa and
Mohenjo-
Daro)?

Regards

Geoff Powers

Hello,

I was wondering why I cannot fully access the database of IE roots on
the Indo-European Database.  I am only able to access the roots that
begin with the letter "a".  Can anyone help me access the rest of the
database?  Any replies will be greatly appreciated.

Rob Haden

A check on the provenance of the Guti shows I am out by 400+
years! The Guti first entered the Mesopotamian historico-geographical
sphere circa 2300 BCE.

An article I have read in the past few days on the proto-history of the
Balkans written by a Serbian author appears to show some confusion
between Mysian and Moesian (i.e. spoken in the Roman imperial province
of Moesia).  The latter is presumed to be a Dacian language, but are these
two one and the same?  I do not know.

GP

What are the latest theories about the  dispersal of Indo-
European speakers?

I have just re-read an the article by Tamaz Gamkrelidze and
V. V. Ivanov (1990) which postulates that Eastern Anatolia
was the dispersal point/'homeland' of the Indo-European
languages, rather than an area in Southern Ukraine/Russia
favoured by many other theorists.

Gamkrelidze and Ivanov's  theory may account for the well-
documented historical contacts between IE and the Kartvelian
languages (Georgian, Mingrelian, Laz, and Svan).

What role might the theory of Black Sea inundation have
played in language dispersal?

Geoff Powers

--- In cybalist@y..., "sergejus_tarasovas" <S.Tarasovas@s...> wrote:
> In the _Elements of Indo-European Phonology_ published on the
TITUS'
> website (http://titus.fkidg1.uni-
frankfurt.de/didact/idg/idgphon.htm)
> *h3 is ascribed a phonetic value of [voiced faryngeal fricative],
and
> it's stated there, that it therefore can trigger regressive
> assimilation, switching a preceding voiceless consonant to its
voiced
> allophone. Thus, it's stated, that the cluster /ph3/ phonetically
> surfaces as [b`] in the same manner as /pd/ surfaced as [bd]; the
> examples provided include 3 pl. present of the drink-verb,
> reconstructed there as *piph3enti [pib`onti], allegedly continued
in
> OInd. _pibanti_, Lat. _bibunt_, OIr. _ibat_ and *h2eph3o:n
[hab`o:n]
> 'watery' (N.sg), continued in OIr. _aub_.
>
> That raises a lot of questions.
> 1. Is anybody on the list aware of other examples, both pro and
> contra?
> 2. If Piotr's treatment of the drink-verb
> (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/7986, also
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/7968) is correct,
> *piph3enti is an impossible form, the correct form being *pipiHenti
> (since 1. the root would be *peiH- rather that *peH- + *-i-; 2. the
> exact quality of the laryngeal is unknown, since -o- in forms like
> *po:- and *poi- is accounted for by the qualitative ablaut rather
> than the o-colouring laryngeal; 3. the word looks like an athematic
> intensive from athematic *peiH-/*poiH- formed by "i-grade
> reduplication").
> But then, I with my rather dilettanticly straightforward way of
> thinking can't see how *pipiHenti would account for, say, OInd.
> _pibanti_ and Lat. _bibunt_. Why _b_, indeed? Why Latin -unt- in
case
> the laryngeal is not restricted to *h3?
> And, last not least, why *piHV- > *pV? One would expect *pijV- (if
> from *pi.HV-) or at least *pjV- (if from tautosyllabic *piHV-, this
> would assume the sonority of the laryngeal to be greater than that
of
> *i [j].
>
> Sergei

Given that Sergei apologizes for what he himself describes as his
amateur status, I shouldn't be writing this at all. But supposing I
have understood what the subject is, this question popped up in my
mind:

If some PIE verbal or nominal root contains the ablaut vowel
[e/o/nothing], and that

PIE -peH-/-poH-/-pH-  -> -pe:-/-po:-/-b'-
(applicable also to other stops of course)

does that mean that (verbal or nominal) root would end up as a
pradigm with a "mixed" root (-p-t-/-p-d-) which might be levelled
either way?

Torsten

--- In cybalist@y..., "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@h...> wrote:
<Snip>
> If some PIE verbal or nominal root contains the ablaut vowel
> [e/o/nothing], and that
>
> PIE -peH-/-poH-/-pH-  -> -pe:-/-po:-/-b'-
> (applicable also to other stops of course)
>
> does that mean that (verbal or nominal) root would end up as a
> pradigm with a "mixed" root (-p-t-/-p-d-) which might be levelled
> either way?

I believe that in this hypothetical context the fuller form would be
**peh3t.   The most voiced trajectory for the zero grade would have
been ph3t > bh3t > bt > pt.  However, the reduced grade of *pod-
  'foot'  (no laryngeal!) was pd > bd, with bd- > ped- initially.
Piotr has posted, in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/2630, examples of
Sanskrit compounds with a non-initial element 'bd' for foot.

I don't know of any levelling arising from such construction, but I
wouldn't be surprised to see the arguments (e.g.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/4674) over Greek
ogdoos 'eighth' (compared with okto: 'eight') resurface.

Can we still write xW for h3 and claim that 'x' is a substitute for
gamma as well as chi?

Richard.

** indicates a reconstruction I don't believe.