Uralic and IE

[Miguel Carrasquer Vidal]

"Glen Gordon" <glengordon01 at hotmail.com> wrote:

>Let's see if I get it straight this time... :)

>Pre-IE     IE      Anat      >        CS        Greek
> *-t       *-t     *-t                *-H1       -
> *-k       *-k    (*-h)               *-k        -k
> *-p       *-H3   (*-h)               *-H3       -

Not quite.  I mentioned no -k in Greek, merely a possible
alternation -H2 ~ -k-.

>1. **-t > *-H1

>Besides the fact that this sound change itself lacks more than one or
>two examples, *H1 could really be any consonant or even a long vowel
>according to your "evidence". A <-t> is found only in Anatolian and
>outside of Anatolian we can't say WHAT laryngeal it should be (if at
>all) let alone if there's a correlation between these non-Anatolian
>forms and the Anatolian ones.

One good example is all it takes.  Beekes reconstructs the
instrumental sg. as -(e)H1.  The instrumental (where it exists at
all and isn't made with *bhi/*mi) shows a lengthened vowel in all
roots (-a: for a:-stems, -i: for i-stems, -o: or -e: for
o-stems), which can only mean -H1.  Hittite has -it (< *-et).  If
we postulate a development **-t > *-H1, the Hittite form can be
connected to the others [as well as to other, extra-IE,
instrumentals in -t, if we so wish.  I give you Georgian -it,
Sumerian -ta].

>2. **-k > *-H2

>In your own words: "Anatolian has -t, but not *-k (> *-H2 > -a
>[n.pl.])". There's no indication in any known IE language of **-k being
>archaic and a lack of such an entity doesn't require explanation because
>such a finite set of endings will undoubtedly fail to end in something.
>IE lacks *-bh, *-g and possibly *-l too but I don't see you crying over
>this trivia.

The supposition is merely that if there are masc/fem. roots in -k
or -t (nom. -ks, -ts), we might expect some neuters too, and
there aren't any.  This may be due to an Auslautgesetz, as
suggested by the few clues we have (ins. sg. -t ~ -H1, fem. -H2 ~
-k-).

>For this particular sound change, you rely purely on the pecularities of
>Greek and isolated examples like Sanskrit <asrk>, which shouldn't have
>*-k, remember? I shouldn't have to go on. That kind of logic in itself
>is deplorable and if Greek -k- does point to a laryngeal somehow we
>cannot, as in the first sound change, nail this down to anything more
>specific than this:

>                **-k ?> *-(H) (?)

Surely -H2, if anything.

>3. **-p > *-H3

>Again, let me refer you to yourself who said, "AFAIK, there's no
>evidence for **-p (or for *-H3 as a grammatical suffix).  It's merely
>there for symmetry." Symmetry or aesthetics? No **-p and no *-H3. It's
>quite clear.

Symmetry is aesthetics, aesthetics is symmetry.

>In summary, this is what your very uncertain idea amounts too:

>                **-t ?> IE *-(H) (?)
>                **-k ?> IE *-(H) (?)

I agree the whole thing is uncertain, but one question mark
suffices:

**-t > *-H1 (?)
**-k > *-H2 (?)

>By the way...

>ME (GLEN):
>  Come on, Miguel. First, why does it end in -nx instead of **-nk? Are
>  y'sure it's not from IE *-nk-s?
>MIGUEL:
>  Of course it is.  The point is that there are (AFAIK) no
>  _neuters_ in -nk, which I explain by hypothesizng that absolute
>  final -nk would have given -r[H2], and a paradigm -rH2/-nk- would
>  have subsequently been the victim of Ausgleich.

>Perhaps _I_ was the victim of Ausgleich myself. :) If Greek <lynx> is
>animate (VERY animate, I hear) and with *-s I fail to see how this is
>important to our discussion about an unattested "second" form of an
>_inanimate_ heteroclitic with an unattested **-k.

See above.  There are in general no formal distinctions in
(Pre-)PIE between animate and inanimate nouns as far as the shape
of their stems are concerned.  So if there are a lot of animate
nouns in -nts (and a few in -nks), we'd expect a few neuters in
-nt at least. Instead we have a few irregularities involving
-r(t), -r(k) and -nt- mixed into the heteroclitics.

>ME (GLEN):
>  First, whether the heteroclitic stems end in *-t or *-d changes
>  nothing since I've been saying that there was no pronunciation
>  contrasts in IE between *-t and *-d (or *-dh).
>MIGUEL:
>  Which is obviously false.

>Obviously how?

Sanskrit, for instance, has -d for the ablative, -t for the
3rd.p. sg.   Reason enough.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv at wxs.nl
Amsterdam