Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/yókʷr̥

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

@CodeCat: I'm not sure I know the evidence for this one, but Klimp under the advisement of Kroonen makes a strong argument for a class of hysterokinetic collectives of the shape nom. ∅-ṓ ~ gen. ∅-∅-é ~ loc. ∅-é for *sóḱr̥ and *wódr̥ (with *udṓr). Kloekhorst is also quite vehement that the Hittite descendants for each must come from *sḱṓr and *udṓr. I'm inclined to agree, particularly when it supports *sóḱr̥, *wódr̥, and cruor from *kruh₂ṓs so nicely. —JohnC5 19:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen nouns with stressed o in the suffix though. The long ō in the collectives is because of Szemerényi's law: -orh₂ becomes -ōr. This o is unstressed and preceded by a stressed e-grade, as is usual for amphikinetic nouns, compare *h₂éḱmō which has the same ablaut pattern, and *h₂éwsōs which seems to parallel your *kruh₂ṓs except for the accent. Most of my knowledge is based on Ringe though. —CodeCat 19:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like me to send you the Klimp? I'm in the process of reading the Ringe at the moment. He does say that he is not trying to present a completely summary of PIE grammar (though he is astoundingly compendious and I trust him on the whole). In reading it, I've come across several strange things (like why *h₁widʰéwh₂ should not undergo Szemerényi's Law). I'm actually in Philadelphia for a UPenn graduation of a relative. If only I had thought of it before, I could have tried to contact him to discuss these discrepancies. If you'd like, I had been intending to email him anyway. Should I make a list of things to ask him? —JohnC5 19:50, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You can ask him whatever you'd like of course. :) But this is an interesting point to bring up. And of course the *diwyós issue. And yes please do send it. —CodeCat 20:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is English "liver" related?[edit]

Is it possible English "liver" is related? It would require two irregular sound changes: the initial l- , and the irregular change kʷ -> p -> Proto-Germanic b (Verner's law). The initial l- is also seen on Armenian "leard" The article on Latvian "aknas" mentions Old Prussian "lagno"

206.212.40.129 18:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*o ~ *e acrostatic[edit]

@Victar do you think an *o ~ *e acrostatic as in *dṓm ~ *déms would be more suitable for this noun to explain Latin's reflexes? It could explain easily the o/e variants. I see no attestations of a zero grade in the descendants. I also think that a proterokinetic wouldn't give Latin's c but rather qu instead. –Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 16:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tom 144: Yeah an acrostatic makes more sense. --{{victar|talk}} 16:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Victar: Shall I go on and change it? --Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 03:10, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of r/n-stem?[edit]

This is not a question that regards specially *yókʷr̥, but does anyone know any theories which explain the alteration between r and n in the declension of r/n-stems? I can give an example - *déh₃nom (“gift”) and *déh₃rom (“tribute”) from a hypothetical *déh₃-r̥ - where the two endings produced autonomous words. Is it possible that this declension resulted from the merger/reanalysis (not sure how to call it) of earlier lemmas formed through the so-called Caland system or there is another explanation? Bezimenen (talk) 09:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I personally believe final *n became *r in Pre-PIE. I know of at least another example of this alternation. In the secondary 3rd person singular and plural endings (*-t, *-ent), the final *t was not always present. It's a fairly stablished fact that the *t was not always used in the mediopassive voice (as in *-tor/-or, <*-ontor/-oror), but Sihler makes a case for assuming the same for the active voice. If that is case, one can see how the 3rd person plural stative ending *-ēr could be the t-less form of *-ent, with word final rhoticism. I would suppose that exceptions like the suffix -men are restructured heteroclitic forms. But of course, that's just my personal opinion. –190.215.24.90 22:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re: diff[edit]

@Victar, most your points are good, but I've the following objections:

1. What's your source/reasoning for Proto-Hellenic?
2. PIE *yokʷ-éh₂ is sourced (I've given Morgenstierne's etymology as an alternative)
3. I think it's good to have all relevant references together on one page, so you can immediately see what the entry is based on. Duplication is not a problem because Wiktionary is not paper. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 22:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Caoimhin ceallach:
  1. Proto-Greek *əR would have to comes from PIE R̥, and if you reconstruct an *n in the genitive, the pre-proto form assumes *yékʷ-en-ós, not the invalid **yekʷ-n̥-ós.
  2. The Pashto is literally impossible because, like the Yidgha form, it demands an i-mutation, see RC:Proto-Iranian/yákr̥. You can't always blindly follow papers, and instead need to be able to parse the data for errors and inaccuracies.
  3. There is something also called citation overkill, as well as formatting entries per the status quo, instead of creating one's own standards.
--{{victar|talk}} 00:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Victar:
1. What do you assume to be the pre-proto form? How do you know *n̥ wasn't vocalised before the genitive ending was replaced by full grade *-ós? Your idea creates the additional difficulty of having to explain how full grade *-en- went back to being zero grade -α-.
2. I don't think it's a mere oversight. Cheung (2002, p. 192) explicitly reconstructs Yidgha with *y and Pashto without. Unless it's possible to clearly state why an i-mutation is absolutely unavoidable, there's no harm in giving alternatives.
3. We're a long way away from citation overkill. More importantly: the main assertions in an entry should be backed up within that entry, not elsewhere. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 13:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Caoimhin ceallach:
  1. How would you reconstruct the late PIE form to PGk *yékʷənos? The Ancient Greek -ατος (-atos) derives from *-n̥tos, which is unetymological to r/n-stems, but instead spread to all nasals stems from nt-stems.
  2. The -ə- in Pashto, like the -ē- in Yidgha, is a result of an i-umlaut process: Proto-Iranian *yáxnyaH > *yíxnʲā > Pashto ینه (yëna), Waneci ینه (yina). Proto-Iranian **yáxnaH would have resulted in Pashto **yana, and the origin of that incorrect reconstruction is Pokorny. But regardless, even if it was from **yáxnaH, this is an intra-PII derivation, not a PIE one.
  3. What are the "main assertions" and how does citing the very expected outcome in Proto-Indo-Iranian accomplish that?
--{{victar|talk}} 22:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. *yékʷ-n̥-s.
2. I suspect you're being to strident, as you've often been recently, but I'll concede this point because you know much more than me about Indo-Iranian.
3. Assertion: *yákr̥ ~ *yaknás is the IIr proto-form. Firstly, we should assume a reader is no expert and might not find it obvious. Secondly, it actually isn't obvious at all because the inflection in PIE is so uncertain. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 23:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Caoimhin ceallach:
  1. PIE *yékʷ-n̥-s would directly yield PGk *yékʷəs. What's the medial form that gets to your *yékʷənos?
  2. If by "to[o] strident" you mean intent on creating proper reconstructions, then yes.
  3. See WP:BLUE and no, it is expected as this is how all PII r/n-stems are inflected.
--{{victar|talk}} 00:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Victar
1. I have no view on how exactly syllabic resonants were vocalised, or where the long η comes from. I assume the development was something like: *yékʷ-n̥-s > *yékʷ-ən-s >> *yékʷ-ən-os >> *yékʷ-ənt-os > *yékʷ-ət-os > ἧπατος, as this require the fewest assumptions, but I'm open to other ideas.
2. By too strident I mean unable to entertain the idea that one could be wrong.
3. This is a long way away from asserting that the sky is blue, see Curse of knowledge and yes, that right there is another statement which deserves to be referenced. If it's true it's not obvious because PIE still had a lot of variation. But it's probably not true: some still had a mobile accent while others were leveled. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 12:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Caoimhin ceallach:
1. PIE *yékʷ-n̥-s > PGk **yékʷ-ən-s is an invalid step, as is *yékʷ-ənt-os > **yékʷ-ət-os. What happened in pre-Proto-Greek, like in pre-Proto-Indo-Iranian, was that syllabic nasals became nasalized vowels before losing their nasalization all together: N̥ > Ṽ > V.
PIE *yékʷ-r̥ ~ *ikʷ-én-s > (leveling) *yekʷ-r̥ ~ *yekʷ-en-s > (thematisation) PGk *yekʷ-ər ~ *yekʷ-en-os > (generalization of nt-stem genitives to all nasal stems) *yekʷ-ər ~ *yekʷ-ət-os (< *-n̥t-os < *-n̥t-és) > Ancient Greek ἧπαρ ~ ἥπατος (hêpar ~ hḗpatos)
2. Says the guy who can't concede a point without condescending.
3. And the references are there, for those that are interested, just on the entry, not after every entry link.
--{{victar|talk}} 19:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. I told you I have no view on how the vocalisation happened exactly. It was with that in mind that I tried to edit the Proto-Hellenic with an as light a touch as possible. Replace ən with Ṽ, it doesn't matter. As usual you are unduly confident that your view is the correct one. Firstly, you still cling to your unique concept of thematisation. Secondly, your account of the provenance of τ is unlikely, as *-ατος in Greek nt-stems was replaced everywhere. (See Sihler §288 for a more likely explanation.) But if we ignore all that, you're right in that it is indeed one of the many possibilities. What about the accent, did you intend it to be on the ending?
2. I'm not sure what instance you're talking about. If I ever came across as condescending, I apologise, as that was not my intention. Still, fact is you seem unable to concede a point at all.
3. There is no policy that forbids references occurring in multiple entries. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 23:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Caoimhin ceallach:
  1. See, this is why I don't respond on items: what the process is called isn't important to the discussion, but you make a point to focus on pedantic minutiae.
    The first theory Sihler gives -- what I laid out above, and the common one -- is the genitive being rebuilt as nt-stem adjectives/participles. He alternatively theorized that they might instead be to-stem adjectives built on n-stems, which is possible, but I don't see anyone else supporting this.
    Regardless, **yékʷənos is not a valid reconstruction and *yekʷenós lines up with Italic and Anatolian as the form before the spread of this innovative t-stem genitive. I haven't looked into accent placement, and when it shifted from the suffix to the root.
  2. [1]
  3. Of course not, who's arguing that?
--{{victar|talk}} 07:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. What things are called is very important, if you want people to understand you.
Your theory is unlikely: "But it is hard to progress beyond a vague likelihood to that effect, and the supposed model paradigm has itself been everywhere replaced (G has no pple. stems analogous to Ved. júhvat nom.sg.m. 'invoking' < *ǵhe-ǵhw-n̥t-s)." You haven't addressed the reason that it's unlikely. And nowhere does he mention a theory with to-stem adjectives. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 12:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my theory, it's just the commonly subscribed to one. Also "unlikely" is your opinion, not Sihler's, where in his paper he calls the alternative theory given (which I believe is actually from Brugmann) only "slightly more cogent". More specifically it starts with men-stems rebuilt as to-stems, citing a parallel in Latin -mentum. --{{victar|talk}} 17:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sihler is very clear: "But it is hard to progress beyond a vague likelihood to that effect". That's another way of saying "unlikely". And he says these me/ont-stems are rebuilt as to-stems in Latin. They have nothing whatsoever to do with to-stems in Greek. It's becoming a tradition that I have to point out to you what it says in texts. Why? —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 20:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you not realize when you're being condescending? It's not helpful to communication. "But it is hard to progress beyond a vague likelihood to that effect", does not mean "unlikely", he's just saying that it's hard to prove beyond a theory, as is any theory on this. Why are we even arguing about this? It has no bearing on what the form of the genitive was in Proto-Greek before they were rebuilt. --{{victar|talk}} 21:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've told you several times now I have no problem with mistakes, errors, and being wrong. I really don't. I am often wrong. I make many mistakes. But your unforgivingness with other people's mistakes in combination with a lack of effort and endless excuses for you own is jarring. Don't see it as condescension, see it as criticism. You're obviously very smart, knowledgeable, and put a lot of effort into this project. I don't understand why you have to be so adverse.
Case in point: a "vague likelihood to that effect" is not a theory, any more than a shopping list is a nutritious meal.
Why are we even arguing this? Because you would rather dig in and lash out than concede even a minor point. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 22:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Reconstruction_talk:Proto-Indo-European/yókʷr̥&oldid=78022589"