 |
| DiachronyOfPreIE.pdf |
| Hosted by eSnips |
The above link takes you to my new pdf detailing the changes that I've concluded thus far have taken place from as early as Proto-Indo-Aegean (c.9000 BCE) to Proto-Indo-European proper (c.4000 BCE), a span of approximately five thousand years. This is not a final product and I will be continuing to adapt and expand this pdf. The date of revision will be shown at the top of the file whenever I do update, however I will warn people when I do. (So don't worry, people! Glen will take care of everything! LOL!)
Hopefully now with this new file, I'll be understood a little better and people will be better able to follow along with my rants on Pre-IE and challenge any stubborn assumptions I have.
The link seems to be broken... :\
ReplyDeleteOkay, the link's no longer broken. Maybe it was a fluke.
ReplyDeleteSkimming over your document, I do have one question right off the bat. Why do you think root aorists were such a late feature? They exhibit perfectly the features of quantitative ablaut, which is the older form.
Very interesting so far. I have a few questions though.
ReplyDeleteI can't really think of any examples of your 'Labial Dissimilation Exception', care to provide some?
As for Satemization. I am not aware of any words that are 'satemic' in Tocharian. It is as far as I know, invariably an centum language.
Same goes for Anatolian actually, I know that there's been some debate on whether Anatolian had retained the full three-velar series, but I thought the consensus was that it wasn't, and that it is also a centum language.
If you can provide any examples of either of these languages with some sort of 'satemization', I'd gladly see it.
I'm very much pleased with *-ōu- > *-ū-. Having never come to that conclusion myself, I do find it very elegant. It works, fits. It's great. :D
Rob: "Why do you think root aorists were such a late feature? They exhibit perfectly the features of quantitative ablaut, which is the older form."
ReplyDeleteSorry! Arrgh! Bad mistake: That should be "thematic aorist", the ones with accented thematic vowel attached. Root aorists without thematic vowel are old (e.g. *deh3t, *bhuh2t), yes, although I don't believe they were "aorists" in the strict sense on the PIE level since the triaspectual model is a post-IE feature primarily using Greek and Indo-Iranian as its basis while unfortunately ignoring the incongruence of Anatolian grammar. Thanks for catching that.
Phoenix: "I can't really think of any examples of your 'Labial Dissimilation Exception', care to provide some?
ReplyDeleteI've talked about this a while ago on Cybalist. Here's the message: Glen Gordon, Velars and palatalization (was: RE: [tied] Re: Albanian (1)) (Jan 23 2004). It includes a few examples. Miguel Carrasquer provided other interesting examples as well because he surmised an alternative theory that *a was caused by neighbouring nasal stops instead.
Phoenix: "As for Satemization. I am not aware of any words that are 'satemic' in Tocharian. It is as far as I know, invariably an centum language."
Yes, you're correct: Tocharian is not a Satem language per se. However Tocharian shows palatalization nonetheless and I suppose I should explain myself better in the pdf that I'm also including satem-like areal influence as well. I admit this is a little confusing and I need to add more in that document.
Phoenix: "Same goes for Anatolian actually, I know that there's been some debate on whether Anatolian had retained the full three-velar series, but I thought the consensus was that it wasn't, and that it is also a centum language."
Things get more complicated if one ponders a scenario where budding Anatolian dialects are affected by the Satem wave in the north of the Anatolian area and later on provide the basis for satem-like results in Luwian by way of dialect mergers and such.
Phoenix: "If you can provide any examples of either of these languages with some sort of 'satemization', I'd gladly see it.
As I said, Tocharian is not Satem per se, but there is historical palatalization that affects its development (e.g. *gʷeneh2 > säm (A)/sana (B) 'woman'). Also some propose that "Southern Anatolian" (from whence Luwian) was an early PIE dialect more affected by neighbouring Satem dialects than "Northern Anatolian". Look for Southern Anatolian and Northern Anatolian as separate Indo-European Dialects and Antolian as a late linguistic Zone in Greater Anatolian and the Indo-Hittite Family, ed. R.Drews (Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph series, N 38), Washington, D.C. (2001), pp. 131-183. So the question is not whether Tocharian and Anatolian are satem dialects (which they are indeed not), but whether they were notably affected by satem dialects and thus whether they show satem-like innovations.