313 S_u_P_K_itp.machia, czyli SKRiBHa v.s. bogi i tytani intelektu, największą grrówno burzą w dziejach nie tylko tego wszechświata? Akt 1

…..

WSTĘP

Ten i kolejne wpisy są dokumentacją, a następnie analizą tego co ocalało, czyli radioaktywnego pyłu, który opadł był po tej niesławnej bitwie i jednocześnie ultra super hiper postępowa sztuka teatralna w trzech lub więcej aktach, pisana przez przebiegle podstępnego i nie tylko Narratora, czyli Mię…

…..

Podstawa literacka:

https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tytanomachia
https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigantomachia
https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batrachomyomachia
https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myszeidos_pie%C5%9Bni_X

https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubu_Kr%C3%B3l_czyli_Polacy

…..

Aktorzy:

1. „Davidski” – zazdrosny i bezlitosny bóg i zakochany w sobie tytan intelektu, twórca pierwszego wszechświata zwanego „Eurogenes”, który jest praprzyczyną różnych wypadków, które wydarzyły się w akcie drugim i kolejnych.

Cierpi katusze jak Prometeusz, pewnie dlatego, że niosąc ognik wiedzy maluczkim, wpadł kiedyś w Yamnę, jako PIE… i połamał sobie w na tym zęby, co go pewno boli do dziś dnia. Dodatkowo nie jest pieszczony przez inne narcystyczne kosmiczne byty, o których uwagę zabiega, a które nie zawracają sobie nim głowy. Stąd jego rosnące rozgoryczenie, może także napędzane przez zmiany wywołane magicznymi sosami, które ochoczo zażywał.

2. „StP” – wg niego nieomylny i wszystkowiedzący tytan i ałtorytet. Pod pseudonimem „stanp” pojawi się w akcie drugim, kiedy to objawi się w drugim wszechświecie nazwanym „Sylwetka”, gdzie jak się okazuje bywał czasem wyśmiewany przez „S_u_P_K” itp., za swój karpacki patriotyzm, czy inne ograniczenia..

3. „SKRiBHa” – zwykły śmiertelnik, choć w sumie to wcale nie taki zwykły. To wstyd wstydów, paproch paprochów, mierność nad miernościami. Tak przynajmniej czasem wspólnie twierdzili zarówno tytani, jak i bogowie, choć czasem byli jednak innego zdania i nie oceniali SKRiBHy, aż tak jednoznacznie negatywnie, ani też początkowo nie atakowali go ze ślepą furią, choć trzeba im przyznać, że z aktu na akt coraz bardziej rozgrzewali się i rozkręcali…

4. „S_u_P_K” – nieomylny i wszystkowiedzący tytan tytanów, ałtorytet ałtorytetóf. Tak go określił „ambroziak”, który sam będąc twórcą wszechświata zwanego „Sylwetka”, czyli jego głównym bogiem, musiał przecież wiedzieć, co mówi…

5. „ambroziak” – Global Moderator Hero Member, twórca drugiego wszechświata zwanego „Sylwetka”, jego główny bóg i uber admin, zarządzający wszystkim, w tym i adminem, aczkolwiek uznający swą niższość i podwładność wobec tytana „S_u_P_K”, nie tylko jeśli chodzi o wiedzę, czy ałtorytet…

6. „Zbyszko Tarczewski” Administrator Hero Member, admin i drugi z bogów drugiego wszechświata, ale nie z tych sprawiedliwych, czy pracowitych. Pewno jest jak Odyn ślepy co najmniej na jedno oko, więc z powodu tej usterki, należy mu to i owo wybaczyć…

7. „Ingvar” – kolejny wg niego samego nieomylny i wszystkowiedzący tytan i ałtorytet, aczkolwiek ciągle wyśmiewany przez „ambroziak” i innych tytanów intelektu, ale także i zwykłych śmiertelników, za swój allo-allo patriotyzm, czyli takie ograniczenie i skrzywienie turbogermańskie, skierowane przeciwko innym tytanom, ale także i bogom, przynajmniej identyfikujących się inaczej, zgodnie, czy też nie zgodnie ze stanem faktycznym…

8. „Horus” – zwykły śmiertelnik, często pojawiający się znikąd i wypowiadający logiczne twierdzenia, które są najczęściej ignorowane przez tytanów i półbogów, którzy jednak nie atakują go, tak jak to robią ze SKRiBHą, choc ich twierdzenia są w sumie logicznie identyczne…

9. „Wojtek” – zwykły śmiertelnik, czasem nieoczekiwanie pojawiający się znikąd i szybko znikający, wypowiadający w tym czasie logiczne twierdzenia, które są jednak zawsze ignorowane przez tytanów i półbogów.

10. Chór kozłów złożony z innych śmiertelników, którzy wygłaszali różne logiczne i nielogiczne twierdzenia, opłakiwali odejście „S_u_P_K”, jako nieomylnego i wszystkowiedzącego tytana tytanów, ałtoryteta ałtorytetóf, po tym odszedł był na zawsze z tamtego wszechświata.

…..

Miejsce akcji:

Dwa prawie równoległe i czasem wzajemnie przenikające się wszechświaty stworzone przez ich zazdrosnych i bezlitosnych bogów, co najmniej 3 wątki, od 4 do 7, a czasem nawet do 11 czasoprzestrzeni, kilka czarnych dziur i tuneli czasoprzestrzennych, przez które niektóre byty z obu wszechświatów przenikały z jednego wszechświata do drugiego…

Na podstawie tego co ocalało, wszystko wyglądało coś jakoś tak:

AKT PIERWSZY

…..

01. StP napisał na Eurogenes to, co napisał…

…..

August 12, 2023 at 3:48 AM
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2023/07/dear-sandra-wolfgangwe-have-problem.html?showComment=1691837282156#c1484674320743002152

StP said…
@All
Heggarty to improve!

The Indo-European language tree need not be a hybrid; Its origin does not need to be sought in the Iranian Neolithic population. There is no need to question the closer affinity of Baltic (Balto-Slavs) and Indo-Iranian and to deny the centum-satow dialects and the rules of „ruki”.

The solution is simple. According to classical Indo-European studies, it should be recognized that centum was the initial, root dialect of Indo-European languages. There was no shared innovation in the group. They were created only after the migrations of separate groups (see I.R. Danka in: Bednarczuk, Języki Indo Europejskie, vol. 1, p. 280 and here).

Common linguistic innovations, even before the migrations, took place only in the satem dialect, and further innovations separately in each group, either during or after the migration.
And all of this could only be in the R1a genetic family.

The first migration of R1a with the kentum diaect, branch YP4141 (and probably the younger YP7211), probably took place through the Southern Carpathians, and from there to Anatolia, Iran, Arabia and Palestine; and separately to the Alps.

Later under snip M417 snip and dialect kentum CTS4385 moved to Northern and Western Europe.
On the other hand, in the lines under the Z645 snip, innovations were made separately for the Z283 line, mainly to Central and Eastern Europe, and separately for the Z93 line, mainly to Asia.
See film (10 min.): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iungylb-La&t=430s
(start set from minute 7.10, i.e. 430 sec.)

…..

02. SKRiBHa odważył się zadać pytanie, na które StP nigdy nie udzielił odpowiedzi.

…..

August 12, 2023 at 5:47 AM
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2023/07/dear-sandra-wolfgangwe-have-problem.html?showComment=1691844474478#c6174716655473303239

SKRiBHa said…
@ StP

(…) According to classical Indo-European studies, it should be recognized that centum was the initial, root dialect of Indo-European languages. (…)

What if ‚classical Indo-European studies’ have been wrong?

What if satem or alternate forms of word roots were the initial stage of PIE, hm?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternation_(linguistics)

August 12, 2023 at 9:36 AM
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2023/07/dear-sandra-wolfgangwe-have-problem.html?showComment=1691858205270#c1893344776102104179

Gio said…
@SKRiBHa

Alternation doesn’t work at the phonological level: centum may become satem, but not satem to centum.

August 13, 2023 at 2:05 AM
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2023/07/dear-sandra-wolfgangwe-have-problem.html?showComment=1691917539293#c4204083381872720523

SKRiBHa said…
@Gio

(…) Alternation doesn’t work at the phonological level: centum may become satem, but not satem to centum. (…)

Well… Although I have addressed my comment directly to StP, I will answer to your erroneous assertion anyway because I am delighted of what you have mentioned. 🙂

It appears that you are rather confused and are unable to distinguish between so-called ‚alternation’ and ‚palatalization’, see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternation_(linguistics)

‘In linguistics, an alternation is the phenomenon of a morpheme exhibiting variation in its phonological realization. Each of the various realizations is called an alternant. The variation may be conditioned by the phonological, morphological, and/or syntactic environment in which the morpheme finds itself.’(…)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palatalization_(sound_change)

Palatalization /ˌpælətəlaɪˈzeɪʃən/ is a historical-linguistic sound change that results in a palatalized articulation of a consonant or, in certain cases, a front vowel. Palatalization involves change in the place or manner of articulation of consonants, or the fronting or raising of vowels. In some cases, palatalization involves assimilation or lenition. (…)

Do you now recognize your error?

…..

03. W międzyczasie Davidski opublikował kolejny wpis, gdzie StP drążył dalej…

…..

August 12, 2023 at 5:20 PM
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2023/08/were-dealing-with-bunch-of-insert.html?showComment=1691886025883#c4713452630981428637

Davidski said…
@All

Wolfgang Haak and Johannes Krause are responsible for this sort of naive bullshit. From their paper…

Genetically, the ancestry of Indo-Iranic speakers also derives much more heavily from south of the Caucasus and from Neolithic Iran than from the Bronze Age steppe (16) (see Box 2).

Right, because a set of shared „Caucasus/Iranian” alleles in an admixture analysis that entered India on ~10 separate occasions over a span of several thousand years actually represents the same language group.

On the other hand, one major pulse of Eastern European ancestry along with R1a (which dominates Indian upper castes) apparently left no linguistic traces in India.

Haha.

August 13, 2023 at 2:32 AM
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2023/08/were-dealing-with-bunch-of-insert.html?showComment=1691919144447#c5133770598015591305

StP said…
@all

I like the work of Heggarty et al. that he captured and used in DensiTree the oldest elements of the PIE language. After all, languages in isolated patrilineal families could develop extremely slowly and for a long time, and probably from the roots of the R1a paternal lineage. „Horse, wheel and axle” is perhaps just some middle stage in the evolution of the PIE language.

It is a pity, however, that the irrationally adopted concept of the evolution of the hybrid PIE language did not allow, contrary to the data of paleogenetics, to show the real genetic and linguistic unity already at the beginning of this language and in one lineage R1a , as linguistics and genetics rightly postulate. Depriving PIE of unifying dialectal elements, such as centum-satem and the „ruki” function, does not solve any problem, but rather harms knowledge and unnecessarily breaks the unity of satem languages of Europe and Sout Asia (probably at the behest of those who dislike „those bad Europeans”).

The spread of the indigenous and primordial centum together with the migration of the early branches of the paternal R1a tree (according to the quoted sketch of the R1a expansion from Geo Nomad) justifies the centum in Anatolia and the Tocharians, as well as in western, northern and southern Europe; leaving the „logically” later satem branches for Central Europe -Eastern and Eastern, and for Indo-Iranian Arians , according to the requirements of Indo-European.

…..

04. Otrzymał za to błogosławieństwo od Davidski’ego…

…..

August 13, 2023 at 4:42 AM
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2023/08/were-dealing-with-bunch-of-insert.html?showComment=1691926968577#c6031813736110930279

Davidski said…
@StP

Stay off your medication when posting here.

…..

05. SKRiBHa próbował jeszcze raz skłonić StP do odpowiedzi, jednak na próżno…

…..

August 13, 2023 at 6:46 AM
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2023/08/were-dealing-with-bunch-of-insert.html?showComment=1691934408452#c891057045581121818

SKRiBHa said…
@ StP

(…) The spread of the indigenous and primordial centum together with the migration of the early branches of the paternal R1a tree (according to the quoted sketch of the R1a expansion from Geo Nomad) justifies the centum in Anatolia and the Tocharians, as well as in western, northern and southern Europe; leaving the „logically” later satem branches for Central Europe -Eastern and Eastern, and for Indo-Iranian Arians , according to the requirements of Indo-European. (…)

In relation to the above, I have already asked you some questions here:

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2023/07/dear-sandra-wolfgangwe-have-problem.html?showComment=1691844474478#c6174716655473303239

Unfortunately you were not bother to give me any answer so I generally explained this to @Gio here:

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2023/07/dear-sandra-wolfgangwe-have-problem.html?showComment=1691917539293#c4204083381872720523

You are stubborn and I am stubborn as well, so I will repeat:

What if satem or alternate forms of word roots were the initial stage of PIE, hm?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternation_(linguistics)

I am guessing that you did not hear of so-called ‘debuccalization’ or ‘deoralization’, did you?

I told you this in 2014 already but again you have ignored this. I will repeat it though.

Here you all have some data to digest:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debuccalization

Debuccalization or deoralization[1] is a sound change or alternation in which an oral consonant loses its original place of articulation and moves it to the glottis (usually [h], [ɦ], or [ʔ]).[2] The pronunciation of a consonant as [h] is sometimes called aspiration, but in phonetics, aspiration is the burst of air accompanying a stop. (…)

Here you all have got some examples from the same source:

(…)
Proto-Greek

In Proto-Greek, /s/ shifted to [h] initially and between sonorants (vowels, liquids, and nasals).

Proto-Indo-European *septḿ̥ → Proto-Greek *heptə́ → Ancient Greek heptá (ἑπτά) „seven” (vs. Latin septem)

Intervocalic /h/ had been lost by the time of Ancient Greek, and vowels in hiatus were contracted in the Attic dialect.

post-PIE *ǵénesos → Proto-Greek *génehos → Ionic géneos (γένεος) : Attic génous (γένους) „of a race”

Before a liquid or nasal, an /h/ was assimilated to the preceding vowel in Attic-Ionic and Doric and to the following nasal in Aeolic. The process is also described as the loss of /h/ and the subsequent lengthening of a vowel or consonant, which kept the syllable the same length (compensatory lengthening).

PIE *h₁ésmi → Proto-Greek *ehmi → Attic-Ionic ēmí (εἰμί) : Aeolic émmi (ἔμμι) „I am”

Sanskrit

In Sanskrit, /s/ becomes [h] (written ḥ in transliteration) before a pause: e.g. kā́mas (‚erotic love’) becomes kā́maḥ.

Additionally, the Indo-European aspirated voiced palato-velar *ǵʰ- became [ɦ]: e.g. *bʰeh₂ǵʰús „arm” becomes Sanskrit bāhúḥ.

Spanish

Main article: Spanish dialects and varieties: Debuccalization of coda /s/

A number of Spanish dialects debuccalize /s/ to [h] or [ɦ] at the end of a syllable or intervocalically in certain instances.

Goidelic languages

Main articles: Scottish Gaelic phonology: Lenition and spelling and Irish initial mutations

In Scottish and Irish Gaelic, s and t changed by lenition to [h], spelled sh and th.
(…)

…..

06. StP nadal unikał udzielenia odpowiedzi na pytania zadane przez SKRiBHę, choć wzbudziły one zainteresowanie innych piszących…

…..

August 13, 2023 at 11:49 AM
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2023/08/were-dealing-with-bunch-of-insert.html?showComment=1691952583339#c7941177851371035117

Ebizur said…
Dear SKRiBHa,

Please explain the following facts according to your theory of debuccalization:

Italian cento [ˈt͡ʃɛn.to] („hundred”) ≠ Italian sento [ˈsɛn.to] („I feel, I sense”)

Scottish Gaelic [kʰʲiat̪] („hundred”)

English hundred ≠ sundry

August 13, 2023 at 3:11 PM
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2023/08/were-dealing-with-bunch-of-insert.html?showComment=1691964660253#c8078697908271333202

SKRiBHa said…
@Ebizur

(…) Please explain the following facts according to your theory of debuccalization: (…)

Many thanks for your comment. I think that we both have to clarify something if we want to get everything properly explained.

This is not ‘my theory of debuccalization’ so logically I can not explain anything according to it as ‘my theory of debuccalization’ does not exist at all. I do not know, who first discovered and described rules of debuccalization / deoralization or so-called ‘rough breathing’ as well.

As I can see in wikipedia, the term was coined by prof. Trask, R. L. (1996), A Dictionary of Phonetics and Phonology, London and New York: Routledge, p. 106

Robert Lawrence Trask (10 November 1944 – 27 March 2004) was an American-British professor of linguistics at the University of Sussex, and an authority on the Basque language and the field of historical linguistics. (…)

deoralization /(…)/ n. (also debuccalization) Any phonological process in which a consonant segment loses its oral articulation. For example, non-prevocalic [s] is deoralized to [h] in many varieties of Spanish: mismos ‚same’ (plural) [mihmoh].

Rough breathing is a kind of debuccalization / deoralization as well and it has been known from ancient times, see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rough_breathing

In the polytonic orthography of Ancient Greek, the rough breathing (Ancient Greek: δασὺ πνεῦμα, romanized: dasỳ pneûma or δασεῖα daseîa; Latin: spīritus asper) character is a diacritical mark used to indicate the presence of an /h/ sound before a vowel, diphthong, or after rho. It remained in the polytonic orthography even after the Hellenistic period, when the sound disappeared from the Greek language. (…)

Here I will repeat just one example:

Proto-Indo-European *septḿ̥ → Proto-Greek *heptə́ → Ancient Greek heptá (ἑπτά) „seven” (vs. Latin septem)

August 13, 2023 at 3:11 PM
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2023/08/were-dealing-with-bunch-of-insert.html?showComment=1691964706655#c5726332799402902983

SKRiBHa said…
@Ebizur

(…) Italian cento [ˈt͡ʃɛn.to] („hundred”) ≠ Italian sento [ˈsɛn.to] („I feel, I sense”)
Scottish Gaelic [kʰʲiat̪] („hundred”) (..)

Could you please explain precisely what you expect from me to do, see above ok?
As it concerns the ‘English hundred ≠ sundry’, I think that this poem will be helpful…

https://lexiline.blogspot.com/2010/02/satem-centum-error-der-satem-kentum.html

Here you have got an explanation, a quote from the poem:

[Explanation of the above verse: Latvian, i.e. proto-European SUNS, SUNIS viz. dim. SUNITis („dog”), became German HUND and English HOUND. So how did Germanic HUNDred come to have the same beginning four letters as their word for dog HUND.

This is because, as we see in verses below, the old Gothic term for thousand was thuSUND and thus SUND then also must have meant 100 at some ancient time, degrading to HUND, viz. hundred.

Based on the German ZEHN „ten”, this too was related, i.e. ZEHNTE = „tenth”. SUND and thuSUND would thus logicaly have been variant number forms of the same root, meaning, as we shall see below „collection, heap”. Nothing indicates that original forms were satem forms such as KUND or HUND. Rather, these are later degradations of the original S-based roots.]

I wrote about it here:

57 The Satem-Centum Error A humorous poem in German by Andis Kaulins

What do you think about this example visible below, hm?

Proto-Indo-European *septḿ̥ → Proto-Greek *heptə́ → Ancient Greek heptá (ἑπτά) „seven” (vs. Latin septem)

August 13, 2023 at 3:42 PM
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2023/08/were-dealing-with-bunch-of-insert.html?showComment=1691966522477#c8346569216649089953

SKRiBHa said…
@Ebizur

Please, pay attention that there are some minor mistakes in this poem, see:

‘thousand’ not ‘thousund’,
‘Nothing indicates that original forms were centum forms such as KUND or HUND.’ not ‘Nothing indicates that original forms were satem forms such as KUND or HUND.’

https://www.etymonline.com/word/thousand

thousand (adj., n.)

„10 times one hundred; the number which is ten times one hundred; a symbol representing this number;” Old English þusend, from Proto-Germanic *thusundi (source also of Old Frisian thusend, Dutch duizend, Old High German dusunt, German tausend, Old Norse þusund, Gothic þusundi).

Related to words in Balto-Slavic (Lithuanian tūkstantis, Old Church Slavonic tysashta, Polish tysiąc, Russian tysiacha, Czech tisic), and probably ultimately a compound with indefinite meaning „great multitude, several hundred,” literally „swollen-hundred,” with first element from PIE root *teue- „to swell,” second element from PIE root *dekm- „ten.” (…)

August 13, 2023 at 7:49 PM
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2023/08/were-dealing-with-bunch-of-insert.html?showComment=1691981344849#c7877913602153836844

Ebizur said…
Wee e wrote, „Gaelic represents the sound K with C.”

As you may see, I have used a phonetic transcription in order to avoid confusion regarding the sound value of the letter „c.”

SKRiBHa wrote, „Could you please explain precisely what you expect from me to do?”

Since you have been going on about „debuccalization”/”deoralization,” I have indirectly requested that you present a case for satem-like characteristics being primary and centum-like characteristics being secondary in the history of the Indo-European languages.

In other words, please demonstrate how one may apply „debuccalization”/”deoralization” to satem-like forms to produce word forms that are attested in present-day Indo-European languages and how such an explanation is superior to the generally accepted reconstruction of proto-Indo-European as having centum-like characteristics, with satem-like characteristics having developed secondarily through the merger of previously distinct phonemes.

August 13, 2023 at 11:43 PM
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2023/08/were-dealing-with-bunch-of-insert.html?showComment=1691995383654#c8108138805368959142

Wee e said…
@ Ebizur. As you can see, in order to show that I was aware that you were aware of that, I wrote “So, yes”.

The topic became the satem/centum sound change. Somehow people seem to have got hung up on specific word for hundred itself.

Anyway, you asked for “ceud” to be explained in regard debuccalisation (did you mean lenition?)
I still don’t understand your question (seems I’m not the only one) — and you still didn’t clarify it.

August 14, 2023 at 2:02 AM
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2023/08/were-dealing-with-bunch-of-insert.html?showComment=1692003738753#c202046918117537320

Ebizur said…
Wee e wrote, „I still don’t understand your question”

I have not posed any question to you. Perhaps you should review my initial comment in this thread.

August 14, 2023 at 4:12 AM
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2023/08/were-dealing-with-bunch-of-insert.html?showComment=1692011553364#c9158854345601533343

Wee e said…
@Ebizur Very well, I have reviewed it. Your first post, apropos of SKiBHa’s reply to StP:

“Dear SKRiBHa, Please explain the following facts according to your theory of debuccalization:”

Your latest post to me, apropos of my second request for clarification:

“I have not posed any question to you.”

Nor had SKRibHa addressed his “theory of debuccalisation” to you.

It seems you do understand it’s a worldwide forum, then. So for the third time, what actually was your question concerning “ceud”?

August 14, 2023 at 4:54 AM
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2023/08/were-dealing-with-bunch-of-insert.html?showComment=1692014096420#c7524617227078325806

StP said…
@Wee, Ebizur, though unsolicited by me, answered on my behalf. Thank you! StP

August 14, 2023 at 6:56 AM
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2023/08/were-dealing-with-bunch-of-insert.html?showComment=1692021408215#c8925223478724001714

SKRiBHa said…
@Ebizur

(…) Since you have been going on about „debuccalization”/”deoralization,” I have indirectly requested that you present a case for satem-like characteristics being primary and centum-like characteristics being secondary in the history of the Indo-European languages. (…)

Many thanks for your clarifications. I am going to answer your requests as precisely as I can. However before I can do it I have to clarify as follows:

Please pay attention and in the future do not omit or simplify the facts that:

a. I have not only been going on ‘debuccalization’ / ’deoralization’, see my original statement:

What if satem or alternate forms of word roots were the initial stage of PIE, hm?

b. The statement itself is a question, moreover I used a conditional there, as well I addressed everything to ‘word roots’ and ‘the initial stage of PIE’…

c. Therefore I have not stated anywhere for example that allegedly ‘debuccalization’ / ’deoralization’ can or explains everything I related to in my original statement!

Here you all have some examples of words / roots / stems as alternated forms of which, I my opinion can not be anyhow explained by ‘debuccalization’ / ’deoralization’ or ‘palatalization’ only, see:

KieN’ / SieN’ / CieN’ / DzieN’ / Z+Gi(e)N’…

To summarise the problems up and to properly explain the alternate forms of the aforementioned words / roots / stems, which at the same time exist in Polish language, we have to take into account / equation:

a. ‘primordial satem or alternated forms of some PIE roots / stems + b. secondary ‘debuccalization’ / ’deoralization’ some of them.

Such an analysis has to be done accordingly to different discovered and described sounds changes / ‘laws’ (D>T, T>D, L>R, etc.) and… only one language theory, i.e. the so-called ‘wave model / theory’, where the so-called ‘novelties’ / ‘innovations’ have been triggered on the ‘edges of waves’, where two waves of people with their languages or dialects of so-called ‘dialect continua’ collide.

The theory is attributed to Johannes Schmidt and Hugo Schuchardt, see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_model

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/Wave_model_Schmidt.svg

Here you all have the same but more detailed visualisation, see:

EastPole has already mentioned and visualised the problem many times here but unfortunately no one was interested to discus it so far… 😦

August 14, 2023 at 6:59 AM
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2023/08/were-dealing-with-bunch-of-insert.html?showComment=1692021570571#c2544242421711806814

SKRiBHa said…
@Ebizur

(…) In other words, please demonstrate how one may apply „debuccalization”/”deoralization” to satem-like forms to produce word forms that are attested in present-day Indo-European languages and how such an explanation is superior to the generally accepted reconstruction of proto-Indo-European as having centum-like characteristics, with satem-like characteristics having developed secondarily through the merger of previously distinct phonemes. (…)

I think that you still do not understand what I stated, see above. Moreover I have already showed such an example, unfortunately you have ignored it many times, see for example:

(…) 6. What do you think about this example visible below, hm?

Proto-Indo-European *septḿ̥ → Proto-Greek *heptə́ → Ancient Greek heptá (ἑπτά) „seven” (vs. Latin septem) (…)

In my next comment I am going to come back to your first two examples but before I have ask you two questions, as you have not commented on the explanation given to your ‘English hundred ≠ sundry’:

Do you understand the explanation given and confirm that according to it the older form of word ‘Hundred’ must have been a satem one, something like ‘Sundred’,.. or do you deny it?

Do you understand and confirm that PIE *septḿ̥ was a satem form which only later was secondary ‘debuccalized’ / ‘deoralized’ and next ‘devoiced’ into Proto-Greek *heptə́ and next lost its initial H sound in Ancient Greek heptá (ἑπτά), which is explained by the so-called rough breathing,.. or do you deny it?

August 14, 2023 at 6:59 AM
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2023/08/were-dealing-with-bunch-of-insert.html?showComment=1692021579857#c1922867377578752355

Wee e said…
@StP

I didn’t ask about your post. I just thought it was generally incoherent: oddly literal about centum/satem as a lexical item, &/or casting the classification itself as some nefarious project.

Ebizur answered nothing that I asked: he prefers his “explain ceud” comment to remain gnomic. Or incoherent.

August 13, 2023 at 3:07 AM
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2023/07/dear-sandra-wolfgangwe-have-problem.html?showComment=1691921267772#c6405019576150996391

Gio said…
@ SKRiBHa

As usual, I of course will study all the matter. It seemed to me that you tried to use the “Alternation” for saying that there wasn’t a priority of the centum IE as to the satem ones. I answered that centum languages are older than the satem ones. What you call “palatalization” is a case of the passage from centum to satem languages (even though Woudhuizen wrote interesting things also about that). The matter of course merits to be studied carefully, but what I said, that centum languages are older is a truth, thus it is a proof, I think (in spite of the centum Tokharic), of the origin in the west and not in the east, and remember that Latin is linked with the pile dwellers of the emerged Adriatic.

August 14, 2023 at 10:23 AM
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2023/08/were-dealing-with-bunch-of-insert.html?showComment=1692033836936#c5626414341853307783

StP said…
Wee , alias SKRiBHa said

I didn’t ask about your post. I just thought it was generally incoherent: oddly literal about centum/satem as a lexical item, &/or casting the classification itself as some nefarious project. Ebizur answered nothing that I asked: he prefers his “explain ceud” comment to remain gnomic. Or incoherent.

In linguistics, we don’t have 100 percent theories and data, because people, despite the patrilineality prevailing in the past, mix and groups rub against each other. If you know that Ebizur answered incorrectly, write it yourself; how should he write!

August 15, 2023 at 10:59 AM
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2023/08/were-dealing-with-bunch-of-insert.html?showComment=1692122365954#c9189560047713937620

Wee e said…
@StP

“Wee , alias SKRiBHa said” — WTF??? I have one account here, I post under this ID and that’s it. Which I daresay Davidski can confirm, if he were remotely interested.

“In linguistics, we don’t have 100 percent theories and data, ” — Who is this “we”? Certainly you’re no linguist. I’m not sure you even understand what a theory is.

Since you resort to ad hominems and baseless accusations of deception, rather than argue your case on its merits, and since most of what you say is literally incoherent anyway, I see it was a mistake to try to take any of it seriously.

…..

07. Davidski zbanował SKRiBHę i usunął jego wszystkie komentarze napisane w tym, a kto wie, może i we wszystkich innych wątkach na Eurogenes…

…..

August 14, 2023 at 6:00 PM
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2023/08/were-dealing-with-bunch-of-insert.html?showComment=1692061225661#c2192085322652434131

Davidski said…
@SKRiBHa

I’m no expert, but… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia

I’ve deleted all of your recent posts because this is not the place for you to do what you do.

…..

08. SKRiBHa pożegnał się wiec z Davidski’m i jego wszechświatem…

…..

Davidski said…

(…) I’m no expert, but… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia (…)

Well, I’ve got no option but to agree with you.

Although you must have been great, talented and beautiful as well some time ago, it is painfully obvious for a good while already, as you yourself stated it above, that at least in the aforementioned field, you have not been the expert indeed…

It is a pity that you locked your brain inside of a small annoying box and are not able to look outside of it any more.

(…) I’ve deleted all of your recent posts because this is not the place for you to do what you do. (…)

Well, you did what you did and if it is good for you, enjoy it, if it makes you happy though! 🙂

As it is my last comment here, let me say something straight without beating around the bush, ok?

You have never been a charming personality but about two years ago, you became a really narcissistic asshole. The ‚100% efficient sauces’ you voluntarily took into your body must have been doing something really good not only to your big brain, but to your small heart as well.

It is obvious that there is something really wrong not only with you, see your Yamna fairy tale failure, etc.

So, maybe you should look out not only for your swollen ego, hm? No hard feelings, mate..! 🙂

SKRiBHa

…..

KONIEC AKTU PIERWSZEGO