Re: The monumental stupidity of PIE theorists further illustrated

On Jul 24, 12:03 pm, analys...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Jul 24, 11:27 am, "ranjit_math...@xxxxxxxxx"



<ranjit_math...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 24, 9:55 am, analys...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Jul 24, 9:52 am, "ranjit_math...@xxxxxxxxx"
BTW, palatal to velar is not unhaerd of; compare Latin Julius to
Spanish Julio.- Hide quoted text -

So the notion that a Satem language cannot be PIE is only a
probabilistic guess, then?

The original notion was that PIE was very much like Sanskrit; the
reconstructed PIE got more and more different from Sanskrit as the
field was researched. In front vowel conditioning environments under
which correspondances between velars and palatals are found, it's
inconceivable that PIE had a palatal. Try to find one example of an
ancestor language having a palatal, versus a descendant language
having a velar, in this environment and ask the doyens of sci.lang
about it (sorry; the amateur me won't have the competence to explain
it). I don't know the likelihood of a palatal becoming a velar in
other conditioning environments; the Armenian consonant cluster rk
seems to be a velarized reflex of a front consonant even if not a
velarization of a palatal.

Consider the Tamil injivEr (ginger root). It is srngavEra in Sanskrit.
The r was originally vocalic (it's now syllabic), so that may be
respelt as singavEra, the y indicating (like in transliterations of
the Russian central vowel) that it is a centralized form of i. So, it
looks like an older Dravidian form had a velar whereas the current
(Tamil) form has a palatal and has dropped the initial s/z/dz/j. (It's
represented by a zeta in Greek which was pronounced as one of z, dz or
j). Can you think of a counter-example (palatal becoming velar) in
Indian languages?

why look so far for "borrowing with fortition" (my solution to restore
Sanskrit as PIE for cases when sanskrit's sounds could not have
genetically given rise to those of Greek etc.) when we have
attestations of Hawaiian changing s,sh to k?

"We" have no such thing. Hawaiian exhibits borrowed words with the
closest Hawaiian sound to a nonexistent sound from English or
whatever.

You would have to "borrow with fortition" the entire vocabulary of a
language for your idiocy to work.

At least you have admitted that your Sanskritomania is of purely
religious inspiration and has nothing to do with facts or science.

even in chandragupta to sandracottus we have fortition of "g" to "k",
a la "gau" (sanskrit) to cow.

.

Relevant Pages
Loading