tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post1597914710656730705..comments2023-09-24T05:45:23.811-05:00Comments on Paleoglot: Semitic and IE in the Neolithic: How intensive was the language contact?Glen Gordonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-51902604901894547412008-03-25T18:34:00.000-05:002008-03-25T18:34:00.000-05:00Tropylium: "[...]labialization of *š is not the on...<B>Tropylium: <I>"[...]labialization of *š is not the only possibility that would explain why it's reflected as *sw in theorized loanwords into IE."</I></B><BR/><BR/>Okay, so you could have tried to support your claim simply with something from a standard book on phonetics, rather than using unverified snips from Wikipedia or someone's Nostratic voodoo theory. Now hopefully you see where you Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-66764808796829091312008-03-25T12:01:00.000-05:002008-03-25T12:01:00.000-05:00Oh, fine, I'll stop even mentioning Wikipedia. I'd...Oh, fine, I'll stop even mentioning Wikipedia. I'd appreciate if you in turn stopped assuming things such as "blind, cultish faith" of me.<BR/><BR/>Regardless, the point I was trying to make still stands, far as I can see: namely, labialization of *š is not the only possibility that would explain why it's reflected as *sw in theorized loanwords into IE. Plain retroflexion would be another choice.Tropyliumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12113202845911582040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-21206609889036904102008-03-24T12:12:00.000-05:002008-03-24T12:12:00.000-05:00As an added piece of information, Tropylium, both ...As an added piece of information, Tropylium, both Semitic <B>*s</B> and <B>*š</B> are reflected in Egyptian as <I>s</I> so naturally Egyptian data can have no bearing on Semitic phonology anyway, even if we lower our standards of logic to suit your insufficient argument. As every non-relativist can see, your "speculation" when it's so clearly ignorant of facts is just wasting everyone's time.Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-11662574323710318542008-03-23T23:18:00.000-05:002008-03-23T23:18:00.000-05:00Tropylium: "Slavic languages contain a fair share ...<B>Tropylium: <I>"Slavic languages contain a fair share of /z/ + obstruent onsets, in a similar distribution as with /s/."</I></B><BR/><BR/>Irrelevant. This is what's actually reconstructed: <A HREF="http://books.google.ca/books?id=kGUWu_91kOUC&pg=PA71&dq=indo-european+streu-&sig=P1qxccWWX_jrz3g8SXzJt6Sdiks" REL="nofollow"><B>*streu-</B></A>. You could have googled that yourself.<BR/><BR/><B>Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-5530971399114420452008-03-23T12:35:00.000-05:002008-03-23T12:35:00.000-05:00Slavic languages contain a fair share of /z/ + obs...Slavic languages contain a fair share of /z/ + obstruent onsets, in a similar distribution as with /s/. I'm under the impression that these result from /s/ before a voiced stop, and so Slavic evidence would be able to tell apart whether the onset was originally voiced or not. Is this incorrect?<BR/><BR/>---<BR/><BR/>I disagree that quoting (not citing; note the difference) Wikipedia is worse thanTropyliumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12113202845911582040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-61488379475272488662008-03-21T15:08:00.000-05:002008-03-21T15:08:00.000-05:00Tropylium: "Why is PS *ð turning into MIE t in 'sc...<B>Tropylium: <I>"Why is PS *ð turning into MIE t in 'scatter'?"</I></B><BR/><BR/>PIE <B>*streu-</B> predicts MIE <B>*saT(a)réwa-</B> (where T is one of <B>*t</B>, <B>*d̰</B> or <B>*d</B>). Given <B>*t</B> in PIE, <B>*satréwa-</B> is most economical unless this is indeed a loan from Proto-Semitic, in which case <B>*sadréwa-</B> is more natural with devoicing of resultant <B>*sd-</B> to <B>*st-</BGlen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-2881515242400468572008-03-20T11:08:00.000-05:002008-03-20T11:08:00.000-05:00Why is PS *ð turning into MIE t in "scatter"? Is t...Why is PS *ð turning into MIE t in "scatter"? Is there Slavic or similar evidence to not simply reconstruct the word as LIE *s-dreu- with the initial /s/ causing devoicing?<BR/><BR/>Also: are you reconstructing a labialized *s for MIE in itself or just to explain the Semitic connections? Because if it's the former, I'm not so sure you need the assumption of labialization in Semitic too. <A HREF="Tropyliumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12113202845911582040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-20679681299646583322008-03-20T08:24:00.000-05:002008-03-20T08:24:00.000-05:00Phoenix: "*táuro- had always been one that was way...<B>Phoenix: <I>"*táuro- had always been one that was way too suspicious to me too. [...] Dutch has 'stier' going back to proto-germanic *stiuraz which should go back to PIE *(s)teuro- I guess."</I></B><BR/><BR/>I'm a little skeptical of this word for different reasons. How sure are we that the forms in <B>*st-</B> really go back to the same word or even to PIE? Apparently some are skeptical like Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-36811891280289562792008-03-19T19:30:00.000-05:002008-03-19T19:30:00.000-05:00*táuro- had always been one that was way too suspi...*táuro- had always been one that was way too suspicious to me too. I always figured greek borrowed it from Semitic or the other way around<BR/>But I just realised Dutch has 'stier' going back to proto-germanic *stiuraz which should go back to PIE *(s)teuro- I guess. The vocalism of Greek is pretty odd though.<BR/><BR/>I'm not known to the PSem. *šu, but if it is as you say; I think that one is PhoeniXhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17627425696035152752noreply@blogger.com