Zompist Bboard Again

While there may be merit to the idea that PIE *o was a long vowel, there is one problem. If PIE *o in PIE *genos was actually **genōs, then what was the PIE *ō in dʰéǵʰōm? You are simply confusing long vowels of different time periods. The long vowels of forms like *dʰéǵʰōm arose after the old oppo...

There is IMHO nothing wrong with drawing typological parallels between IE and NWC; there may even have been an areal connection as the two proto-languages probably were neighbours; though they are morphologically so different that a "genetic" relationship is pretty much out of the question...

Nice stuff so far, and welcome to the new ZBB, Dewrad!

Point taken on the invalidity of argumentation with recourse to Uralic. Indo-Uralic is not proven, so we cannot use it in arguments about the origin of anything in IE - such attempts remain speculative. Also, the parallel I drew to Uralic was chiefly meant as a typological one: an early stage of PIE...

In agglutinating languages, the plural suffix usually precedes the case suffix, as number is a more intrinsic property of the noun than case. However, the accusative plural *-ns , if from earlier *-ms , seems to show the "wrong" order, which, as I already wrote, may be due to the suffix *-...

OK, I understand now. But this does not really answer the question of how plural case endings emerged that can't be derived from combinations of a columnar plural marker and the relevant singular case suffix. How do you derive *-os from *-X-ei and *-is from *-X-h 1 (wherein *-X- is the oblique plura...

The dative plural is nowhere *-os in Late PIE, is it? Sure, this morpheme is part of the *-bhyos ending, but it is not the dative plural ending itself. Jasanoff says that it is, but I just can't follow his argumentation, there are a lot of leaps of logic in it. So what makes you so sure that *-os in...

Or the laryngeals, which the young Ferdinand de Saussure reconstructed some 30 years before Hrozný deciphered Hittite, so he simply couldn't have used Anatolian data, and didn't. The Hittite ergative case suffix *-anza , on the other hand, probably was an Anatolian innovation, there is no trace of i...

Jasanoff's article fits in pretty easily, in that it's just clarifying the original early PIE forms. However, I'm skeptical of the base claim, that the Anatolian indifference to number should be projected back to PIE. Even before considering evidence, it smacks of the trendy new position to automat...

Well, the PIE3 plural case endings are a conundrum. They clearly did not originate from plural marker + case marker (there is, for instance, no way from something like *-es-ei to *-bhyos ), so something else must have happened. But what? For the genitive, Kloekhorst has found, as I have written, a w...

People tend to change only what doesn't feel like working well enough . Underspecifiying scripts (and that's what an abjad is) are not the exception but the norm. Also, I doubt that any Greek ever thought, "Hmm, that's nice, But what about the vowels?" and went forth inventing vowel letter...

An interesting article. Thank you.

I am thinking about the Late PIE ("PIE3") plural cases. It seems as if Early PIE ("PIE2" in my terminology, the ancestor of PIE3 and Anatolian) may have been a language where only the nominative and the accusative case distinguished number, perhaps from the loss of phonetically f...

Is this Welsh sound changes applied to Gothic? And why is it posted here and not in the Conlangery forum?

@Howl: It seems to be fashionable among Nostraticists to reconstruct Proto-Nostratic as an analytic language, but the Mitian languages are generally synthetic, ranging from agglutinating to fusional, so I think an agglutinating Proto-Mitian language is more plausible. I have the feeling that Proto-U...

Your observation that emigrants are usually poor people brings me to a possible solution of the Fermi Paradox. In order to be able to colonize other planets, a planetary society must obviously be technologically highly advanced - way more advanced than we are. But unless they allow for a ridiculous ...

As we have no Indo-Uralic sound correspondences yet, we can't tell whether the "Southeast Uralic" indefinite conjugations are in any way related to the IE "h2-conjugation", but is it out of the question that the Hungarian and Selkup forms are cognate to each other, even if the PU...

I am now also growing increasingly skeptical of Seefloth's Paradigm. The paradigms compared by Seefloth may just be parallel developments of Northern Samoyedic and Eskimo - perhaps built from cognate Mitian morphemes, but not as such reconstructible for Proto-Mitian.

Another morphological difference between active and inactive verbs were the personal endings. Each of the two classes had its own set of endings. Active verbs used a set related to the personal pronouns, which is reflected in the active non-perfect endings in PIE3, the mi-conjugation in Hittite and...

According to my personal hypothesis, Proto-Indo-Uralic was an active-stative language, and PIE may have been the same as late as PIE1. There were two classes of nouns: animate and inanimate, and two classes of verbs: active and inactive. Active verbs were either transitive or intransitive, while ina...