Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [tied] Negation

Expand Messages
  • Arnaud Fournet
    ... From: Piotr Gasiorowski To: Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 10:55 AM Subject: Re: [tied] Negation
    Message 1 of 143 , Dec 3, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...>
      To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 10:55 AM
      Subject: Re: [tied] Negation


      >
      > On 2008-12-03 10:30, Arnaud Fournet wrote:
      >
      >> ne oukwi can become n- ouki ?
      >> kwi > ki instead of pi ?
      >
      > Instead of <ti>, actually (before a front vowel). The delabialisation of
      > *kW after *u/w in a fixed compound (as in boukolos < *gWou-kWolh1o-) is
      > regular.
      ========

      This presupposes that the longest form is the oldest.
      There is no clear proof for that.
      It seems Mycenean already had short forms 'ou'.
      Long forms could also result from expansion of the short one.
      What indications do you have that the long or the short one should be
      considered the oldest ?

      H2oju-kwi > ouki is somehow brilliant,
      but brilliant does not mean right.
      Why is it *Hoju does not yield oü ?

      Why should 'ou' not be connected with a large variety of words like
      u-(bogu), etc ?
      I guess this is an "old" question,
      what does a rather objective assessment of this question looks like ?

      A.
      ========

      >
      >> (h)aud is "not"
      >> I thought the h was just a graphic adornment.
      >
      > No, it's always there. The word is consistently <haud, haut> (very
      > occasionally <hau> before a consonant in early Latin), not *<(h)aud>.
      > Whatever its etymology, it's clear that both here and in the case of Gk.
      > <ouk(í)> the "true" negator was deleted and the surviving element is an
      > original emphatic particle (like French <pas> or English <not>).
      >
      > Piotr
      >
      =========
      ok
      Let's admit this !
      A.
    • Arnaud Fournet
      ... From: tgpedersen To: Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2009 3:06 PM Subject: [tied] Re: Vacillate ...
      Message 143 of 143 , Feb 14, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
        To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2009 3:06 PM
        Subject: [tied] Re: Vacillate


        >
        > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Arnaud Fournet" <fournet.arnaud@...>
        > wrote:
        >>
        >>
        >> > cf. Germ. wackeln "totter", Eng. waggle.
        >> >
        >> > The standard approach is to see the Lat. word as inherited, but
        >> > given the late attestation, could it be a Germanic loan (with 2LV
        >> > to boot)? Gladiator talk become fashionable? Or something picked
        >> > up from the slaves?
        >>
        >> I just noted Fr. bancal "bandy-legged, wobbly". 'Venetic' *w- > b-.
        >> Interesting. Cf. Germ. wankeln = wackeln.
        >>
        >> Torsten
        >>
        >> ==========
        >>
        >> A derivative of banc "bench"
        >> because they are seldom stable.
        >>
        >
        > Not very convincing.
        > Can you cite an authority on that or did you just make it up?
        >
        >
        > Torsten
        >


        http://www.cnrtl.fr/etymologie/bancal

        A.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.