Zju wrote: ↑Sun Aug 29, 2021 11:51 am Most of these "correspondences" that you have suggested have been refuted as chance resemblances.
Could you explain your reaction?...you know, for those of us who are not the PIE expert you are.
Let me guess: his reaction is that he has run out of arguments.
i think you all are missing the point .... none of these criticisms hold water if you accept that the languages are of different groups in the first place .... youre essntially trying to prove PIE is monogenic by assuming that PIE is monogenic and then listing examples of roots that follow sound changes presumed to have taken place in early IE days. but none of these arguments are going to convince PIE skeptics of anything.
I'm not sure what your point is, except that Talskubilos isn't going to be convinced that PIE has existed.
alice wrote: ↑Mon Aug 30, 2021 12:59 pm
In any case, "bh" (/bʰ/) became /b/ in Balto-Slavic and Albanian, not /p/, and I'm not aware of any alternations between /p/ and /b/ in Slavic.
I assume Talskubilos knows that (I may be wrong). What I'm referring to are theories I've seen on the net that all labials / velars / dental series ultimately go back to one series each (which I don't share, but Taskubilos seems to share); I can't find the links now.
Pabappa wrote: ↑Mon Aug 30, 2021 1:13 pmi think you all are missing the point .... none of these criticisms hold water if you accept that the languages are of different groups in the first place .... youre essntially trying to prove PIE is monogenic by assuming that PIE is monogenic and then listing examples of roots that follow sound changes presumed to have taken place in early IE days. but none of these arguments are going to convince PIE skeptics of anything.
That's right. I put that example because I think IE isn't monophyletic. It isn't a question of weird "sound laws" but of internal correspondences between purported "PIE" roots.
hwhatting wrote: ↑Mon Aug 30, 2021 11:47 amAs for the concrete example you're citing - the etymon behind portus etc, is a verbal noun in -tu- noun produced in accordance with well-known rules from the root *per-; that root is also attested in Slavic and Albanian, in those languages, just that specific noun is not attested. But the noun is attested widely enough (there's also Avestan pərətu- ‘bridge’) that it can be safely assumed not to be just a North-Western regionalism, but reconstructed for PIE. *bhred- seems limited to Balto-Slavic and Albanian, although there are place names in Continental Celtic and Thracian that may contain the root*). But you're basically comparing a derived noun with a root.
*) Based on the limited distribution, *bhredh- would even be a plausible candidate for a substrate word. OTOH, it may as well be a root-extension of a simpler root; there are several roots of the type *bher-C- that have to do with movement.
My point is whatwever of them is "native", they're related at a deeper level.
Talskubilos wrote: ↑Mon Aug 30, 2021 3:02 pm
My point is whatwever of them is "native", they're related at a deeper level.
Given the PIE root constraint, I don't think that *per and *bher being related should be a surprise. (Whether they are is another matter.)
This is where external comparanda fit in. For example, Semitic *gbl 'mountain' corresponds to both IE *ghebhōl 'head' (English gable, Greek kephálē) and *kapōl-o- 'head, skull' (Old English hafola, Sanskrit kapā́la-).
Talskubilos wrote: ↑Mon Aug 30, 2021 3:02 pm
My point is whatwever of them is "native", they're related at a deeper level.
Given the PIE root constraint, I don't think that *per and *bher being related should be a surprise. (Whether they are is another matter.)
This is where external comparanda fit in. For example, Semitic *gbl 'mountain' corresponds to both IE *ghebhōl 'head' (English gable, Greek kephálē) and *kapōl-o- 'head, skull' (Old English hafola, Sanskrit kapā́la-).
hwhatting wrote: ↑Mon Aug 30, 2021 11:47 amAs for the concrete example you're citing - the etymon behind portus etc, is a verbal noun in -tu- noun produced in accordance with well-known rules from the root *per-; that root is also attested in Slavic and Albanian, in those languages, just that specific noun is not attested. But the noun is attested widely enough (there's also Avestan pərətu- ‘bridge’) that it can be safely assumed not to be just a North-Western regionalism, but reconstructed for PIE. *bhred- seems limited to Balto-Slavic and Albanian, although there are place names in Continental Celtic and Thracian that may contain the root*). But you're basically comparing a derived noun with a root.
*) Based on the limited distribution, *bhredh- would even be a plausible candidate for a substrate word. OTOH, it may as well be a root-extension of a simpler root; there are several roots of the type *bher-C- that have to do with movement.
My point is whatwever of them is "native", they're related at a deeper level.
Talskubilos wrote: ↑Mon Aug 30, 2021 3:02 pm
My point is whatwever of them is "native", they're related at a deeper level.
Given the PIE root constraint, I don't think that *per and *bher being related should be a surprise. (Whether they are is another matter.)
This is where external comparanda fit in. For example, Semitic *gbl 'mountain' corresponds to both IE *ghebhōl 'head' (English gable, Greek kephálē) and *kapōl-o- 'head, skull' (Old English hafola, Sanskrit kapā́la-).
you do realize that Modern English is 500+ years after Old English, which is anywhere from 1500-3000 years younger than Greek (which Greek?)....which is...wait, which branch of Semitic is that?...and how old is it?
So you aren't even comparing contemporaries like English no and Japanese noh.........you're comparing Classical Chinese with the Cherokee syllabary with anything else of any other time.
alice wrote: ↑Mon Aug 30, 2021 12:59 pm
In any case, "bh" (/bʰ/) became /b/ in Balto-Slavic and Albanian, not /p/, and I'm not aware of any alternations between /p/ and /b/ in Slavic.
I assume Talskubilos knows that (I may be wrong). What I'm referring to are theories I've seen on the net that all labials / velars / dental series ultimately go back to one series each (which I don't share, but Taskubilos seems to share); I can't find the links now.
I haven't seen this, but the Yabêm thesis (*T and *Dh go back to the same series and the distinction developed out of transphonologization of an originally vocalic or suprasegmental contrast, like breathiness or a binary tonal opposition) seems promising as an explanation for why *TeT and *DheDh but not **TeDh or **DheT
keenir wrote: ↑Mon Aug 30, 2021 6:25 pm
you do realize that Modern English is 500+ years after Old English, which is anywhere from 1500-3000 years younger than Greek (which Greek?)....which is...wait, which branch of Semitic is that?...and how old is it?
So you aren't even comparing contemporaries like English no and Japanese noh.........you're comparing Classical Chinese with the Cherokee syllabary with anything else of any other time.
more like Proto-Tocharian and Cantonese - we know they were around
Quick question for Talskubilos: The standard argument of, well, all historical linguists is that if two languages have extensive, regular and consistent sound changes throughout their whole lexicon, they must be equivalent [EDIT: sorry, meant ‘related’]. Are you seriously saying that this argument is incorrect?
Last edited by bradrn on Tue Aug 31, 2021 12:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
Talskubilos wrote: ↑Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:35 pmThis is where external comparanda fit in. For example, Semitic *gbl 'mountain' corresponds to both IE *ghebhōl 'head' (English gable, Greek kephálē) and *kapōl-o- 'head, skull' (Old English hafola, Sanskrit kapā́la-).
[citation needed]
For the IE part, see Mallory & Adams (2006): The Oxford Introduction to PIE and the PIE World, p. 174.
Zju wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 12:29 amIs there a citation for the correspondance itself, or is it made up? Anyway, a singular resemblance is a chance resemblance, or a borrowing at best.
bradrn wrote: ↑Mon Aug 30, 2021 7:30 pm
Quick question for Talskubilos: The standard argument of, well, all historical linguists is that if two languages have extensive, regular and consistent sound changes throughout their whole lexicon, they must be equivalent [EDIT: sorry, meant ‘related’]. Are you seriously saying that this argument is incorrect?
I take it you are not going to answer my question then?
bradrn wrote: ↑Mon Aug 30, 2021 7:30 pm
Quick question for Talskubilos: The standard argument of, well, all historical linguists is that if two languages have extensive, regular and consistent sound changes throughout their whole lexicon, they must be equivalent [EDIT: sorry, meant ‘related’]. Are you seriously saying that this argument is incorrect?
I take it you are not going to answer my question then?
Well, historical linguistics isn't exactly like maths, you know.
bradrn wrote: ↑Mon Aug 30, 2021 7:30 pm
Quick question for Talskubilos: The standard argument of, well, all historical linguists is that if two languages have extensive, regular and consistent sound changes throughout their whole lexicon, they must be equivalent [EDIT: sorry, meant ‘related’]. Are you seriously saying that this argument is incorrect?
I take it you are not going to answer my question then?
Well, historical linguistics isn't exactly like maths, you know.
…and how exactly is this relevant in any way? This appears to be a non sequitur.
Seriously, stop deflecting and answer the question: do you agree that, in general, regular and consistent sound correspondences between two languages provide evidence that they are related? Answer ‘yes’, ‘no’, or ‘I don’t know’.
bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 1:53 amSeriously, stop deflecting and answer the question: do you agree that, in general, regular and consistent sound correspondences between two languages provide evidence that they are related? Answer ‘yes’, ‘no’, or ‘I don’t know’.
bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 1:53 amSeriously, stop deflecting and answer the question: do you agree that, in general, regular and consistent sound correspondences between two languages provide evidence that they are related? Answer ‘yes’, ‘no’, or ‘I don’t know’.
I'd say NO.
OK, finally we make progress in communicating with each other! Hooray!
I strongly disagree with you here, so I’d be interested to know how you came to this opinion.
