Uralic and IE

[Glen Gordon]

MODERATOR:
  What happened to your proposed *-d ending in neuter i- and u-stems?

What examples do you have in mind? And are you sure they aren't derived
from other case forms? I'm interested. List them.

[ Moderator's response:
  You are the one who is claiming that all neuters at one time had a final -d.
  It is up to you to explain where it went in words such as *peku "herd", *doru
  "tree", *gonu "knee", and the like.  The simpler explanation is that it never
  existed in those forms.
  --rma ]

ME (GLEN) in response to MIGUEL:
  In Pre-IE, it was. It can be seen that there was originally only a
  contrast of animate/inanimate made in the accusative where animate
  took *-m and inanimate took *-ZERO. When the nominative *-s and
  nomino-accusative *-d came along, it became a different story. The
  consistent use of *-s and *-d forms in the nominative (whether just
  in the pronominal forms or not) MUST be a recent innovation if they
  are to be linked with Etruscan grammar. Etruscan has no *-d, period.

MODERATOR:
  Where did they come from?  Endings do not just jump up out of the
  grass of the steppes, do they?

Funny, I thought I explained this already. The *-s and *-d are from
affixed demonstratives. Is this a problem? Maybe you can ask questions
with a less arrogant tone next time and read what I write thouroughly
before responding too soon. Hostility isn't doing any of us any good,
especially the list in general.

ME (GLEN):
  If you're saying that IE *-t > CS *-H1 then you have to say that IE
  *-k CS *-H2 and IE *-p > CS *-H3. This means that we should see
  Anatolian languages with a cornucopia of *-k's and *-p's. Is this
  what we find?

MIGUEL:
  No.  We must simply assume that the loss of **-p was earlier and
  more complete than the loss of **-k, and the loss of **-k was
  earlier and more complete than the loss of **-t.

ME (GLEN):
  What did you say? "No"? Thank you, that'll be all, your honor.

MODERATOR:
  Nonsense.  One postulated development does not require any others.
  Thus, the fact that we do not find the developments you postulate
  simply means that no such developments took place; the lack of such
  developments has no bearing on the existence of others which *did*
  take place.

Mr. Moderator, I hope this is not in reference to my first quote above
that starts "If you're saying that IE *-t > CS *-H1 then you have to say
that IE..." because this would prove that you are not paying attention
to the discussions that are taking place. That quote is referencing an
even earlier quote by Miguel where he in fact seems to be positing such
a thing. I was simply rephrasing to make absolutely certain that I
understood what he was saying and to make it clearer (in terms of
time-frames such as Indo-Anatolian vs. Centum-Satem) for my further
arguements. Please re-read the archived discussions and get back to me.

The fact that Hittite which is suppose to precede these sound changes
does not abound with -p's and -k's is very relevant to Miguel's
assertions. He might be able to say that Indo-Anatolian *-t becomes a
later *-H1 and get away with it but if no evidence exists of *-p to *-H3
as he has stated then this is pure speculation. In terms of Greek and
evidence for a -k- (which really shouldn't be there in the first place
if *-k became *-H2 in Centum-Satem), I question whether Greek's -k- is
archaic or whether this is simply an intrusive phoneme serving to mark
the boundaries between vowel-final root and vowel-initial suffix. No
doubt the ka-perfect is weaved into this.

[ Moderator's deepest apologies:
  I am sorry.  I had missed MCV's claims regarding the possibility of *-p and
  *-k developing into laryngeals in non-Anatolian Indo-European, and believed
  that you were setting up a straw man argument against his *-t > *-H_1.  I
  remain agnostic on the latter claim, but like you see no evidence for the
  former.
  --rma ]

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