tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post5996215715520644776..comments2023-09-24T05:45:23.811-05:00Comments on Paleoglot: Ejective or Pharyngealized Stops in Proto-Semitic?Glen Gordonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-76161745263751885592008-09-17T19:45:00.000-05:002008-09-17T19:45:00.000-05:00Lameen: "This is due to variation within English (...Lameen: "This is due to variation within English (between rhotic and non-rhotic dialects), not irregularity in the mapping of foreign sounds. Anyway, kaizeru is from German, not English."<BR/><BR/>Really? No irregularity in the mapping of foreign sounds you say? So, do you dare suggest that foreign speakers hearing a language for the first time will reproduce the sounds faithfully then? That's Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-29809811509227638432008-09-17T19:36:00.000-05:002008-09-17T19:36:00.000-05:00Rob: "Why does emphatic /t/ correspond to IE *dh b...<B>Rob: <I>"Why does emphatic /t/ correspond to IE *dh but emphatic /k/ (i.e. /q/) correspond to IE *g(W)?"</I></B><BR/><BR/>In the case of the equation of PIE <B>*gʷem-</B> and Semitic <B>*qwm</B>, the <B>*q</B> would technically be the reflex of <B>*q</B> <I>*and*</I> the following <B>*w</B> in the initial unstressed syllable of the Semitic word.Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-42646233451367841492008-09-17T19:23:00.000-05:002008-09-17T19:23:00.000-05:00Why does emphatic /t/ correspond to IE *dh but emp...Why does emphatic /t/ correspond to IE *dh but emphatic /k/ (i.e. /q/) correspond to IE *g(W)?Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04877359715103710249noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-7702115268798012172008-09-16T10:06:00.000-05:002008-09-16T10:06:00.000-05:00"Sometimes the words drop the "r" (e.g. コンピュータ kom..."Sometimes the words drop the "r" (e.g. コンピュータ kompyuuta "computer") and yet sometimes the words keep the sound intact (e.g. カイゼル kaizeru "Kaiser").<BR/><BR/>This is due to variation within English (between rhotic and non-rhotic dialects), not irregularity in the mapping of foreign sounds. Anyway, kaizeru is from German, not English.Lameen Souag الأمين سواقhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00773164776222840428noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-73624421647967837572008-09-16T05:00:00.000-05:002008-09-16T05:00:00.000-05:00Did you have a specific point in mind from that pd...Did you have a specific point in mind from that pdf? Its main points seem to be that loanwords can be adapted either phonetically or phonologically. I don't see how *nṭ > *ndʰ with traditional, or even glottalic PIE sound values would be either. There may be room for variation, but not anything goes.<BR/><BR/>And where exactly do you see us "going astray"? On a sidetrack, sure, Tropyliumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12113202845911582040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-607334677662488442008-09-11T19:33:00.000-05:002008-09-11T19:33:00.000-05:00Tropylium: "Phonotactical reshaping is an option, ...<B>Tropylium: <I>"Phonotactical reshaping is an option, sure, but aren't *nd and *nt just as valid in PIE as *ndʰ?"</I></B><BR/><BR/>Yes, but you're looking for an absolutely <I>*regular*</I> rule and that's just not realistic.<BR/><BR/>Take Japanese for example. Many words have been loaned from English words ending in syllabic /r/. Sometimes the words drop the "r" (e.g. コンピュータ <I>kompyuuta</I> "Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-89167814551038783992008-09-11T08:42:00.000-05:002008-09-11T08:42:00.000-05:00Chalk the "pharyngeal cluster" issue to ...Chalk the "pharyngeal cluster" issue to dodgy fonts; they now display fine, but on the last time, they were displaying exactly as /kʕ/, not /kˁ/. :/<BR/><BR/>Phonotactical reshaping is an option, sure, but aren't *nd and *nt just as valid in PIE as *ndʰ? OTOH I would however blame this, not the phonetically minute alveolar/dental difference, for the dθ > ks change.<BR/><BR/>And Tropyliumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12113202845911582040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-43358128959973703942008-09-10T19:08:00.000-05:002008-09-10T19:08:00.000-05:00Tropylium: "But I would still expect to see a PS v...<B>Tropylium: <I>"But I would still expect to see a PS voiceless pharyngealized stop reflected as a MIE voiceless stop. You seem to be suggesting a 'cluster' pronunciation with a separate, voiced pharyngeal (that, or your superscripts are broken)."</I></B><BR/><BR/>One may use superscript ayin, or another alternative is to use superscript "ɒ". At any rate, my notation is <A HREF="http://Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-80476940874713335832008-09-10T06:54:00.000-05:002008-09-10T06:54:00.000-05:00The distribution of ejectivs in modern Semitic als...The distribution of ejectivs in modern Semitic also hints of the possibility of PS pharyngealized emphatics. The cross-linguistic evidence is that ejectivs are quite stable, certainly they're much more common than pharyngealized consonants. So where do we find the sound change to have not reached, or to have been reverted in? South Semitic, exactly the area in contact with other languages that Tropyliumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12113202845911582040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-5428721215885703492008-09-09T18:06:00.000-05:002008-09-09T18:06:00.000-05:00Yes, which brings us back to what I commented in M...Yes, which brings us back to what I commented in March 2008: <A HREF="http://paleoglot.blogspot.com/2008/03/semitic-and-ie-in-neolithic-how.html" REL="nofollow"><I>Semitic and IE in the Neolithic: How intensive was the language contact?</I></A>.Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-48427671160440703232008-09-09T11:58:00.000-05:002008-09-09T11:58:00.000-05:00All right, nice that works for me. Only thing that...All right, nice that works for me. Only thing that puzzles me is that the Indo-Europeans seem to have loaned some <I>very</I> essential verbs. If all of these words come to be accepted as actual loans, the influence of the Semites on Indo-European must have been enormous.PhoeniXhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17627425696035152752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-81256442330196341122008-09-08T18:43:00.000-05:002008-09-08T18:43:00.000-05:00Phoenix: "I must say though, that I do have s...<B>Phoenix: <I>"I must say though, that I do have some problems with the semantics of 'To rise up' > 'to come', is there any precedent of such a semantic shift?"</I></B><BR/><BR/>Note that PIE <B>*bʰeuhₓ-</B> itself fundamentally means "to grow (from the ground)" and hence "to arise; to come up". This has then shifted to "to become". When something "arises", we may Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-79266046765898098172008-09-08T10:59:00.000-05:002008-09-08T10:59:00.000-05:00Indeed an elegant solution.I must say though, that...Indeed an elegant solution.<BR/><BR/>I must say though, that I do have some problems with the semantics of 'To rise up' > 'to come', is there any precedent of such a semantic shift?<BR/><BR/>And there seems to be another problem with this word. I assume that you got the IE labio-velar from the combination of q+w.<BR/><BR/>But why then, didn't *h1ékuos get a labio-velar, butPhoeniXhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17627425696035152752noreply@blogger.com