Did anybody read this article? Any comments?

http://www.alphagalileo.org/ReadNotice.cfm?releaseid=6735

- Chris Gwinn

Piotr:
>In Maddieson's (1984) fairly representative database of 317 >languages, 74
>(23.3%) have no phonemes classified as rhotic.

Oh good... a quarter. I thought it was rarer than that. Good,
then my thoughts on a rhotic-less Pre-NWC and its Eastern European
derivative is not impossible, at least in a technical sense.
Eeeeeeexcelent.

- gLeN
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

--- In cybalist@y..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@i...> wrote:
> --- In cybalist@y..., tgpedersen@h... wrote:
> > --- In cybalist@y..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@i...> wrote:
>
> > But is it then possible (he asked innocently) that an alveolar
tap
> > produced by "decay" of /r/ could be mistakenly construed as an
> > alveolar tap /D/ (and progress as such)?
>
> The difference only very rarely matters (by being contrastive), and
> if it does, as in Spanish or Basque, contrastivity prevents trilled
> [r] ("rr...") from undergoing reduction.
>
I wonder if that means yes or no? (As you had probably guessed, what
I really asked was whether /r/ > /d/ was possible?)
>
> Piotr

Torsten

Sorry for rehashing an old thread, but I wanted to see if I could get some
clarification on the "original compound word".

Please let me know if you think any of what I write here is way off base.
I would greatly appreciate it.  Also, I'm not up on my endings in IE or
OGr, so any corrections there would also be wonderful.

TiA.

---

Breaking it down into what would seem obvious to me:

IE *nepot = grandson (later "female's nephew", if I remember correctly)
IE *poti = lord/master/powerful (with the horse association in there
somewhere?)
IE dhen/danu/? = waters (the "heavenly" dew/wet/water mother goddess)
     IE *dheu = to flow
     IE *dhen = same thing, in that it specifically designates the goddess,
or does this exist at all?

I see "Danu" (or, at least, Dan*) in the Celtic languages, in Slavic,
Sanskrit, etc. to designate, loosely, the 'goddess of heavenly water'.  Did
all of these have the same change(s) from IE's *dhen (assuming that was
actually the right word)?  It seems odd to me that would be the case, so
therefore I would assume there was some type of *dhen thing going on before
the respective linguistic splits occurred - perhapsn *dhen, or even a
better *dan-?

---

         G - Poseidon        L - Neptunus

Now, someone mentioned the possibility of *Potis-Da:nuom.  Is -om on
Da:nuom supposed to be the genetive ending in IE?  And, if so, what is the
-s ending for on Potis?  (And why wouldn't it be -ei or -e or something of
the sort?)  Would it be reasonable to think that the full version of that
would have been Nepotisda:nuom?

Nepotisda:nuom > Neptunus
In Latin, why did the "usda:n" part change to "u:n" and not "a:n", such as
Nepta:nus instead of Neptu:nus?  Is that a regualar sound change from IE>L?

Nepotisda:nuom > Poseidon
In Greek, is there any reason in particular why the "ne" would have been
dropped?
I can see how t>s is entirely ordinary, so I don't have a question on that
part.  It is assumed, though, that the "potis" changed to a "pos*" and lost
the "is" (in whatever order), right?  Or is it assumed that the "t" just
dropped out to form "po*s"?

I think something along the lines of Poseidahon was also suggested.  If
someone could remind me again, why the "dahon", "daon", "danuom", or
whatever it was?  Is that what was derived from the IE *dan*/*dheu/*dhen word?

I hope at least part of that made sense, because I'd love to figure this
"lord/powerful grandson of Danu/the waters" thing out.  Unfortunately,
though, I'm still very new to this writing-out-linguistics-on-the-'net thing.

Lucida caela, quamquam vacillo,
Eris

--- In cybalist@y..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@i...> wrote:
>
> (1) *-om is the normal PIE Gen.pl. ending,
> (2) *potis is the Nom.sg. form,

Is #2 also IE [or is it Greek]?

> > Is that a regualar sound change from IE>L?
>
> Certainly not.
>
> > In Greek, is there any reason in particular why the "ne" would
have been dropped?
>
> No reason at all.
>
> *poti- > posi- is regular in Greek (with -ti- surviving in the
dialects).

I figured as much on all accounts.  Thanks for setting me straight.

So why is it "u:n" and not "a:n", then?  =)  (Neptu:nus and not
Nepta:nus?)

> Archaic versions of Poseidon's name include uncontracted
<poseidao:n>, <poteidawo:n>, <poti:dao:n> and the like.

Interesting...

> My own view, BTW, is that the "PIE word" in question, insofar as it
is reconstructable at all, is *d(a)h2nu-s ('[big] river'?) with the
adjectival derivative *dah2neu-jo-s. I'm rather sceptical of deriving
too much from it.

I'll keep that in mind.  Thanks for your help, Piotr.

- Eris

The Mycenean tablets show ending -da-o < *dahon
And how if the relation between -dahon and Sanskrit Dasya, Avestan Dahya
(cf. Az^i Dahaka) ?
Some kind of "god of foreign people"?, like Egyptian Seth?
----- Original Message -----
From: Lisa Jacqueline Emerson <eris@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 7:55 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Neptune, Poseidon, Danu, etc.


> --- In cybalist@y..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@i...> wrote:
> >
> > (1) *-om is the normal PIE Gen.pl. ending,
> > (2) *potis is the Nom.sg. form,
>
> Is #2 also IE [or is it Greek]?
>
> > > Is that a regualar sound change from IE>L?
> >
> > Certainly not.
> >
> > > In Greek, is there any reason in particular why the "ne" would
> have been dropped?
> >
> > No reason at all.
> >
> > *poti- > posi- is regular in Greek (with -ti- surviving in the
> dialects).
>
> I figured as much on all accounts.  Thanks for setting me straight.
>
> So why is it "u:n" and not "a:n", then?  =)  (Neptu:nus and not
> Nepta:nus?)
>
> > Archaic versions of Poseidon's name include uncontracted
> <poseidao:n>, <poteidawo:n>, <poti:dao:n> and the like.
>
> Interesting...
>
> > My own view, BTW, is that the "PIE word" in question, insofar as it
> is reconstructable at all, is *d(a)h2nu-s ('[big] river'?) with the
> adjectival derivative *dah2neu-jo-s. I'm rather sceptical of deriving
> too much from it.
>
> I'll keep that in mind.  Thanks for your help, Piotr.
>
> - Eris
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

 
> Is #2 [*potis 'lord, master'] also IE [or is it Greek]?
 
IE, no doubt about that. It has such cognates as Old Indian pati- and Lithuanian patis. The feminine counterpart was *potnih2- 'lady'.

Also, concerning the Latin side of things, looking at the Etruscan name

> Is #2 [*potis 'lord, master'] also IE [or is it Greek]?
 
IE, no doubt about that. It has such cognates as Old Indian pati- and Lithuanian patis. The feminine counterpart was *potnih2- 'lady'.

My thoughts are that *nepo:t derives from Early IE *nepat:a (in this case, *e is pronounced as a schwa). In turn, it would derive from a compound in IndoTyrrhenian *nep-at:a, meaning "child (of the) father" (with the typical "reverse" order, sort of like French compounds), spoken around 7000 BCE. The Tyrrhenian reflex may be seen in both Etruscan and Lemnian. The medial *t: regularly becomes IE *d, however, since Mid IE loses its final vowels, the phoneme became word-final where there was no distinction between *t, *t: (*d) and *d (*dh). This lack of distinction in word-final position is much like what exists in German today (eg: "Hand" pronounced /hant/).

- gLeN

Does anybody know of a Greek or Latin origin for the Arabic word
qamus ( = dictionary, lexicon)?
-David

Does anybody know if the Arabic word qâmûs "dictionary, lexicon" is
of Greek or Latin origin?
-David

--- In cybalist@y..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@i...> wrote:
> One IE reconstruction of the "house" word is a consonantal stem
declined like this: Nom.sg. *do:m, Gen.sg. dem-s (the o-stem form
*domos is supposed to be younger).

Is there a plausible (or at least consistent) explanation of the
ablaut in that specific case? Stress seems not to help, laryngeals as
well. Again, does the consonantal stem indicate a former inactive
class? If so, why thematized and converted to active -> masculine?

Sergei

--- In cybalist@y..., tgpedersen@h... wrote:
>
> > Interestingly, English seems to be the sole IE language to have
> preserved the "original" PIE pronunciation of *w in prevocalic
> positions.
> >
> > Piotr
>
> Jutland Danish ("jysk") south of the Limfjord has v before front
> vowels, w before back vowels. North of the Limfjord it's w-
> everywhere.
>
> Torsten

For accuracy I should add, after looking at Brøndum-Nielsen's maps,
that the tip of the peninsula Djursland and the island of Samsø has w-
  everywhere (suggesting that "w- everywhere" is a relic), and that
the Eastern part of North Slesvig (the area from the border to
Kolding) has v- everywhere (along with the rest of Alfred the
Great's "South Danes".

--- In cybalist@y..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@i...> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Eris
> To: cybalist@y...
> Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 9:02 PM
> Subject: [tied] Neptune, Poseidon, Danu, etc.
>
>
> > [snip] Now, someone mentioned the possibility of *Potis-Da:nuom.
Is -om on Da:nuom supposed to be the genetive ending in IE?  And, if
so, what is the -s ending for on Potis?  (And why wouldn't it be -ei
or -e or something of the sort?)  Would it be reasonable to think
that the full version of that would have been Nepotisda:nuom?
>
> I don't remember exactly who proposed what in the heat of that old
discussion, but:
>
> (1) *-om is the normal PIE Gen.pl. ending,
>
> (2) *potis is the Nom.sg. form,
>
> so something like *potis da:nwom was supposed to be a phrase
meaning "lord of the waters".
>
>
>
> > I think something along the lines of Poseidahon was also
suggested.  If someone could remind me again, why
the "dahon", "daon", "danuom", or whatever it was?  Is that what was
derived from the IE *dan*/*dheu/*dhen word?
>
> Archaic versions of Poseidon's name include uncontracted
<poseidao:n>, <poteidawo:n>, <poti:dao:n> and the like.
>
> My own view, BTW, is that the "PIE word" in question, insofar as it
is reconstructable at all, is *d(a)h2nu-s ('[big] river'?) with the
adjectival derivative *dah2neu-jo-s. I'm rather sceptical of deriving
too much from it.
>
> Piotr

Re: *pot-
Is this helpful?
http://www.angelfire.com/rant/tgpedersen/pot.html

Torsten

Suppose the compound *dems-pot- is so old that it predates the
conversion of stress into e/o and hence the *dem-s part got its /e/
for /o/ by being unstressed within the compound?

Torsten

--- In cybalist@y..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@i...> wrote:
> As I said I don't quite understand it myself. However, this Gen.sg.
*dem-s is quite well substantiated (Avestan da:N 'of the house').
Nasal (and heteroclitic) stems in general show similar alternations
at least in some branches (*-o:n/-r/-l, *-en-s), cf. also Avestan
xWa:N 'of the sun' < *s(h2)wen-s. PIE *do:m is not necessarily
inanimate (gramatically, that is) -- an asigmatic nominative is to be
expected in this case.
>
> The -o-/-e- alternation originally reflected pre-PIE stress
contrasts, but by PIE times it had acquired morphological functions
of its own, quite independent of stress patterns. The form *dem-s
is "late" in the sense that it must have been formed after the period
of stress-based vowel reductions but "early" in the sense that it
reflects an old consonantal stem (irregular already in PIE) and is
more archaic than thematised *dom-o-. As for thematisation itself, it
hardly needs accounting for, being the simplest and most productive
method of regularising morphologically "difficult" nouns.
>
> Piotr
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Sergejus Tarasovas
> To: cybalist@y...
> Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 10:11 AM
> Subject: Re: [tied] Neptune, Poseidon, Danu, etc.
>
>
> --- In cybalist@y..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@i...> wrote:
>
> > One IE reconstruction of the "house" word is a consonantal stem
declined like this: Nom.sg. *do:m, Gen.sg. dem-s (the o-stem form
*domos is supposed to be younger).
>
> Is there a plausible (or at least consistent) explanation of the
ablaut in that specific case? Stress seems not to help, laryngeals as
well. Again, does the consonantal stem indicate a former inactive
class? If so, why thematized and converted to active -> masculine?

--- In cybalist@y..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@i...> wrote:
...
> The -o-/-e- alternation originally reflected pre-PIE stress
contrasts, but by PIE times it had acquired morphological functions
of its own, quite independent of stress patterns. The form *dem-s
is "late" in the sense that it must have been formed after the period
of stress-based vowel reductions...

1. I have been understanding the matters like that: -o- emerged as
(first) a phonetic element to simplify cluster consonants resulted
from PPIE /*a/ (or whatever) reduction in some unstressed positions.
It was phonologized then, and this process was supported by the low-
tone-provoking laryngeal /h3/. Your statement seemes to contradict
with my understanding. Could you clarify your point of view?

2. Do you exclude the role of the laryngeals in -e-/-o- 'grammatical'
ablaut (not in -e-/-o- alternation in general)?

Sergei

--- In cybalist@y..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@i...> wrote:
> As far as I can see, *o is predominant in old stressed positions
> while *e represents unstressed vocalism

Then it could be paralelled typologically with the East Slavic
developement (expiratory) stressed [e] > [o]. On the other hand, from
(at least my) psychoacoustic point of view, expiratory stress is
associated with the higher rather than lower tone. May be one should
explain this phenomenon in articulatory terms (i.e., stress somehow
provokes shifting the tongue back) ?

Sergei

--- In cybalist@y..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@i...> wrote:>
Archaic versions of Poseidon's name include uncontracted
<poseidao:n>, <poteidawo:n>, <poti:dao:n> and the like.
>
> My own view, BTW, is that the "PIE word" in question, insofar as it
is reconstructable at all, is *d(a)h2nu-s ('[big] river'?) with the
adjectival derivative *dah2neu-jo-s. I'm rather sceptical of deriving
too much from it.

Pardon me if I go over ground already covered. I will cite the
Sanskrit lexemes and tradition of India which gives two distinct
streams of semantics related to danu, da_nu.

One is clearly relatable to (big) river if the following lexeme is
relevant: da_nu = a fluid, drop, dew (Sanskrit).

In the context of da_nava in opposition to deva, here are some
cognate lexical entries, again from Sanskrit:

da_nu = victor, conqueror, valiant; a class of demons

danu = daughter of Daks.a, mother of da_nava-s. danu is also the name
of a son of s'ri_ (also called da_nava, originally very handsome, but
changed into a monster by Indra for having offended him.

--- In cybalist@y..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@i...> wrote:
> [e] is front, to be sure, but in small vowel inventories frontness
is usually a redundant feature. Note that the letter E is the
predominant spelling for phonetic schwas (reduction vowels) in many
Latin-based writing systems.
>

Of course Lithuanian's vowel inventory is far from being small and
therefore may be the following note is not of relevance here, but, as
is commonly accepted, [+ low tone](:[-low tone]) and [+hight tone]
opposition is the most significant for all the vocal phonemes (it
formes the first fork of the vowels tree).

Again, I can hardly understand how a high percent of common
distictive features can trigger the development [stressed e] >
[stressed(!) &] > [o].

Sergei