Uralic and IE

[Glen Gordon]

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       -

Now, apparently, you love this theory because of its symmetry. Of
course, it would be just as symmetric to believe that the earth is in
the center of the universe. However, regardless, I see no symmetry here.
Where do you manage to find it? It seems to me to be a very false theory
for three reasons:

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. Your sound change is reduced to this,
only on an exceptionally sunny day:

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

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.

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) (?)

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.

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

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

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. In the future, make
sure that what you say sticks to the topic at hand. Afterall, we WERE
talking about Uralic's connection to IE at one time...but I'll let that
one slide for now. :P

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? There is no **-dh as far as I know and since there aren't
many examples of various suffixes ending in *-t and *-d aside from the
inanimate and the 3rd person singular in IE, I severely doubt that IE
speakers made a phonemic distinction between the two. Since *-t [3psing
secondary] could very well be easily associated with the primary *-ti
with a solid *-t- by both IE speakers and later IEologists, it's not
surprising that we should see a *-t in the third person rather than a
*-d but a distinction isn't necessary in IE reconstruction.

--------------------------------------------
Glen Gordon
glengordon01 at hotmail.com