Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/bʰedʰh₂-

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Latest comment: 11 months ago by Dpleibovitz in topic two categories for one root
Jump to navigation Jump to search

@Victar There are 3 problems with this reconstruction:

  • First, it fails to explain all the descendants, in particular Ancient Greek: βόθρος (bóthros). If you examine the sources, you'll see that authors who reconstruct *bʰedʰh₂ (LIV, De Vaan) have overlooked the Greek data.
  • Second, it's unpronounceable. De Vaan and LIV have deliberately reconstructed *bʰedʰh₂ because it needs to be resolved sonorically. In this way, it is explained why Latin: fodiō lacks aspiration[Edit: Not correct. The de-aspiration is regular.]. Notice that this is the only root which ends in *-GʰH-. Immediately, this should ring a bell.
  • Third, not all sources reconstruct *bʰedʰh₂ (for example, Kroonen and Matasović don't). This is rather misleading.

I encourage you to start using your brain before mechanically copying what you find in the dictionary. Dictionaries are not always up to date and not always take under consideration all the data. It is up to us to examine any potential gaps and problems with their reasoning. In this particular case, the simpler explanation is that -h₂ was fossilized in Latin and in Proto-Indo-Iranian *bʰadʰHrás but was not originally part of the root. Even De Vaan himself talks about how the root may have originally been a causative (given the o-grade). Clearly, he does not consider the e-grades in Celtic and Slavic. If you don't have answers to the listed problems, I propose returning the reconstruction "*bʰedʰ-".

PS Missed descendants:

@Bezimenen: Hey there! I'm not sure if we've had any discussions before. I'm sorry, but I must disagree with all your arguments here.
  • In the case of βόθρος (bóthros), none of the big three dictionaries (Frisk, Chantraine, or Beekes) think that the etymology from *bʰódʰ(h₂)-ros is a good idea because of the initial β.[6][7][8] The normal Grassmann's Law outcome should be *πόθρος (*póthros) < Proto-Hellenic *pʰótʰros. The claim by Petersson that there was a very early dissimilation from *bʰódʰ(h₂)-ros > *bódʰ(h₂)-ros before the development or Proto-Hellenic is entirely ad hoc. So this is not a good example.
  • Concerning the pronounceability of *bʰedʰh₂-, it depends what you think the laryngeals were fricatives as with Andrew Byrd[9] and many others, then there is not sonority hierarchy violation. As for fodiō, PIE *dʰ normally becomes Proto-Italic *ð and then Latin d, as in *médʰyos > *meðios > medius. fodiō is exactly the expected outcome in this case. Furthermore, most people think *h₂ aspirated preceding stops, even in PIE.
  • More generally, you should not trust everything you read without crosschecking. Kroonen and Matasović (as well as many Leiden scholars) have very idiosyncratic views which most Indo-Europeanists do not believe. As for the other descendants, the semantics for each are terrible, and these equations represent wildly speculative attempts to assign random words to the nearest available root.
—*i̯óh₁n̥C[5] 00:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
@JohnC5: I was wrong about the Latin part. However, I still stand behind my claim that -GʰH- is functionally unpronounceable. Here the word "unpronounceable" probably is not the best one. The issue with this cluster is that it can't be pronounced in a comprehensible manner. How can a listener distinguish between ʰ and a following h₂? This problem is the opposite of the sonority hierarchy violation. In this case, phonemes are so similar, that they become barely distinguishable for human's ear. Unless -h₂- is attached from an earlier suffix, I doubt it would be deliberately pinned to a root ending in Gʰ from the get-go. Bezimenen (talk) 12:02, 17 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
Regarding the Greek data: it is viewed as a possible descendant of √*bʰedʰ-. Reconstructing it from root √*bʰedʰh₂- adds just another problem (the missing laryngeal vocalization) to the non-standard application of Grassman law. It's the same problem with the reconstructions of Kroonen, Matasović, etc. Call them idiosyncratic or however you prefer, but listing their references under an entry for root that they do not reconstruct is misleading. If we reconstruct *bʰódʰh₂-ros for βόθρος, it appears as if it supports the reconstruction of the problematic -h₂. Also misleading. Bezimenen (talk) 12:02, 17 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Bezimenen: To address your "missed descendants" list, we're not compelled to include every form authors allege to be descendants. Even Derksen in his own etymology calls *bedro (“thigh”) "semantically unattractive." *bodъ (“sting, poke”) wasn't in the original entry, so feel free to add it. You also added a Tocharian form, but the root meaning cited by Adam is "bend, press (away)", not "dig, pierce", so two semantically very different roots, which Mallory/Adams calls "homophonous".[10] --{{victar|talk}} 01:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Victar: Slavic has another word for thigh Proto-Slavic *stegno, which may potentially be from a root meaning to lash, to quilt (the predecessor of Russian стегать (stegatʹ)), so it may not so semantically peculiar (albeit speculative). The problem with disregarding Proto-Slavic *bedro is that there is less and less evidence that the alleged *bʰedʰh₂- even exhibited e-grade. Clearly, both of us stick to their biases, so I'll pull the breaks on mine. I got answers to some of my objections, so it's fair this way.
Regarding the Tocharian entries - note taken. I would not go as far as calling the two roots "very" different (their meanings are in the range of semantic shift from one another), but indeed not identical. I felt that Tocharian is underrepresented in entries of PIE, but indeed this is not without a reason. Bezimenen (talk) 12:02, 17 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Bezimenen: Concerning pronounceability, I think you make two mistakes. The first is believing we know how PIE was pronounced. You're making frankly arbitrary claims about whether you think someone can pronounce sounds whose values we do not know. Second, you massively underestimate what people can pronounce. There are plenty of languages which have contrastive aspiration on voiceless fricatives (e.g. /s/ vs. /sʰ/), which is a very similar type of "unhearable" phonetic distinction. Furthermore, it is very common to reconstruct this cluster, as in the 2pl. secondary ending *-dʰh₂we. See Jasanoff[11] and Ringe[12], for example.
βόθρος (bóthros), you said "it is viewed as a possible descendant of √*bʰedʰ-." This is true but barely so. As I showed, the most cited Greek dictionaries do not view *bʰedʰ- or *bʰedʰh₂- as a possible source. Only Petersson in really thought that. Also, I think you misunderstood my point, which was that βόθρος (bóthros) should not be associated with this root at all, regardless of whether it had *-h₂- on the end or not. Furthermore, the term "compensatory hiatus" means nothing. You probably meant "laryngeal vocalization" or the "triple reflex", but you'll find effectively no real hits for "compensatory hiatus" on Google. Also, if we reaaaaally wanted to use the etymology *bʰódʰh₂ros, which we do not, there is something called the Saussure Effect that could cause that laryngeal to delete, but again βόθρος (bóthros) should not be here at all.
—*i̯óh₁n̥C[5] 20:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
Agreed about the last one. If the common consensus is that *bʰedʰh₂- stays, the Greek data has no place under descendants. It only inflicts greater confusion. Bezimenen (talk) 21:03, 17 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

References[edit]

  1. ^ Trubachyov, Oleg, editor (1975), “*bodъ”, in Этимологический словарь славянских языков [Etymological dictionary of Slavic languages] (in Russian), numbers 2 (*bez – *bratrъ), Moscow: Nauka, page 154
  2. ^ Derksen, Rick (2008) “*bedro”, in Etymological Dictionary of the Slavic Inherited Lexicon (Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series; 4), Leiden, Boston: Brill, →ISBN, →ISSN, page 36
  3. ^ Matasović, Ranko (2009) “*bodaro-”, in Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Celtic (Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series; 9), Leiden: Brill, →ISBN, page 69
  4. ^ Matasović, Ranko (2009) “*bodwo-”, in Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Celtic (Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series; 9), Leiden: Brill, →ISBN, page 70
  5. ^ Kroonen, Guus (2013) “*badwō-”, in Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Germanic (Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series; 11), Leiden, Boston: Brill, →ISBN, page 47
  6. ^ Frisk, Hjalmar (1960) “Proto-Indo-European/bʰedʰh₂-”, in Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch (in German), volume I, Heidelberg: Carl Winter, page 248
  7. ^ Chantraine, Pierre (1968–1980) “Proto-Indo-European/bʰedʰh₂-”, in Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque (in French), Paris: Klincksieck, page 183
  8. ^ Beekes, Robert S. P. (2010) “βόθρος”, in Etymological Dictionary of Greek (Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series; 10), volume I, with the assistance of Lucien van Beek, Leiden, Boston: Brill, →ISBN, page 224
  9. ^ Byrd, Andrew Miles (2015) The Indo-European Syllable (Brill's Studies in Indo-European Languages & Linguistics; 15), Leiden: Brill
  10. ^ Mallory, J. P. with Adams, D. Q. (2006) The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World (Oxford Linguistics), New York: Oxford University Press, →ISBN, page 375
  11. ^ Jay Jasanoff, Hittite and the Indo-European Verb, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2003, page {{{1}}}
  12. ^ The template Template:R:gem:PIEPG does not use the parameter(s): 
    p=31
    Please see Module:checkparams for help with this warning.    Ringe, Donald (2006) From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic (A Linguistic History of English; 1)‎[1], Oxford: Oxford University Press, →ISBN

molō-present type[edit]

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Since I'm still not satisfied with the strange -h₂, I dug up its origin. It is based on an idea due to Jasanoff (2003, Hittite and the Indo-European Verb, Oxford University Press). He analyzes there the h₂e-conjugation of Hittite and draws connection with similar constructs in "core" PIE. The type of verbs which he associates the h₂e-conjugation are exemplified with Latin molō (“(I) grind”), hence, the name molō-present. Hitt. paddai- (and therefore Proto-Indo-European *bʰedʰh₂-) is a part of this class. This is why LIV, etc. reconstruct -h₂ (not because of the Latin data, as I wrongly imagined before). It was not an original part of the root, but a fossilized ending from an earlier suffix (as I had presumed). On the one hand, -h₂ is a good indicator of the type of root we are dealing with, but on the other hand, I think it is worth mentioning that info under Etymology or somewhere? This would save us from future flame-wars of the type above.

@JohnC5, @Victar: Do you have any objections against mentioning the molō-present type under Etymology? Bezimenen (talk) 10:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Bezimenen: No objection at all. —*i̯óh₁n̥C[5] 10:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Bezimenen: Go for it. --{{victar|talk}} 19:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

As for the primary meaning of Proto-Indo-European *bʰedʰ-, there is some evidence for to press, to distress:

English bad, Latin battuō (from Gaulish) and some of the questionable derivatives in the current root (*bʰodʰh₂-wo-s in particular) possibly also belong there? A little more digging is necessary, of course. Bezimenen (talk) 11:25, 18 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Bezimenen: Eh, again, Adams calls his shaky etymology (and definition) of Tocharian B pät- (“dam, check”) "unclear", and cites Proto-Indo-European *ped- (“grasp, contain”) as another possibility. Sanskrit बाधते (bā́dhate) could come from *bʰéHdʰ-e-toy or *bʰódʰ-e-toy and Rix[3] went with *bʰéh₁dʰ-e-, which would also fit with PBSL *bēˀdāˀ (“distress, misery”), no? I'm pretty sure that's why Rix went with that reconstruction in the first place. The definition of the Sanskrit is more "urge, harass" though, so a root meaning of "distress, harass", is probably most appropriate. PG *badōną would also fit if you assume a zero-grade, but it's grossly underattested and English bad is a can of worms best left closed. --{{victar|talk}} 19:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
I looked up what बाधते (bā́dhate) means in the source text, and according to {{R:sa:Jamison:2014}}, the best definition is primarily "to thrust away, repel, deflect" and secondarily, "to urge onward; to press upon; to oppress", so some "press" meaning in there as well. --{{victar|talk}} 07:29, 19 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

References[edit]

  1. ^ Kroonen, Guus (2013) “*badōjan-”, in Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Germanic (Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series; 11), Leiden, Boston: Brill, →ISBN, page 47
  2. ^ Adams, Douglas Q. (1999) “pät-”, in A dictionary of Tocharian B (Leiden Studies in Indo-European; 10), Amsterdam, Atlanta: Rodopi, →ISBN, page 369
  3. ^ Rix, Helmut, editor (2001), Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben [Lexicon of Indo-European Verbs] (in German), 2nd edition, Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag, →ISBN, page 68

two categories for one root[edit]

Latest comment: 11 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I added {{PIE root see|head=bʰedʰ}} because *bʰedʰ- redirects to *bʰedʰh₂- and has no home. Perhaps this should be fixed in another manner. I suspect one of these categories should be categorized into the other. Dpleibovitz (talk) 21:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Reconstruction_talk:Proto-Indo-European/bʰedʰh₂-&oldid=78115831"