Re: Re: [tied] French phonetics
- 2009/2/1 Brian M. Scott <BMScott@...>a
> At 10:25:20 PM on Saturday, January 31, 2009, george knyshGeorge, how is that relevant? Places are not people.
>> ****GK: Like Londres for London? Always wondered about
>> that one, or why the Spaniards picked it up.****
> I don't know, but it's old: <Lundres> is found in Old French
> as early as the 12th century.
By the way, Praha (the /h/ is voiced), being unpronounceable to most
west Europeans, is Prague, Prag or Praga almost everywhere. Should I
be desperate? ;-)
I wonder how Jan Amos Komenský and Jan Hus are rendered abroad. I've
seen John Amos Comenius and John Huss in English, Johann Amos Comenius
and Johannes Huss in German, Comenius Ámos János and Husz János in
Hungarian...and what? Is that really such a problem?
I don't think this thread is worth continuing, but who knows...
---In firstname.lastname@example.org, <gpiotr@...> wrote:On 2014-02-15 04:59, dgkilday57@... wrote:
> As for Gmc. *xWi:taz 'white', Skt. _s'vindate_ 'shines' shows that theOnly if you practise an extreme form of cherry-picking. In fact,
> root in question can be *k^weid-.
Sanskrit very strongly supports *k^weit-. Suffice it to mention the
Vedic adjectives _s'vítna-_, _s'vitrá-_, _s'vetá-_, _s'vetyá_ 'white,
light', verbs like the aorist _as'vait_, compounds like _su:rya-s'vít-_
'as bright as the sun', etc. Nearly all of them occur already in the
Rigveda. They are supported by plenty of cognates in Iranian and
Balto-Slavic. By contrast, _s'vindate_ is a late (Dhatupatha) dictionary
root. Its only tangible attestation is the isolated aberrant perfect
_s'is'vinde_ (in a text composed in the 7th c. CE!). The _-nd-_ may well
be a Middle Indic development.
Ouch! In the face of this evidence, *k^weid- must be discarded as a phantom root. Since only *k^weit- is securely attested in Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic (including loans from some centum language into Slavic), it should also be assumed for Germanic.
I am not so quick to posit an /e/-grade vr.ddhi *k^weit-nó- as the source of Gmc. *xWi:t(t)a-. The zero-grade *k^wit-nó- was evidently inherited as *xWitta- 'white' in OEFris _hwitt_, MLG/MD _wit(t)_, etc., and /o/-grade *k^woit-nó- as *xWaitta- underlying *xWait(t)ja- 'wheat'. But with *xWitt- and *xWaitt- in circulation in PGmc, *xWi:tt- may have been created by analogy with inherited ablaut-sets, such as those provided by Class I strong verbs. Speakers of most dialects may have felt that */i:/ was more appropriate than */i/ for an adjective now meaning 'inherently or intrinsically albescent' rather than the passive sense 'blanched, bleached, whitened' or whatever *k^wit-nó- originally denoted. In this hypothesis, the considerable number of passive participles and deverbatives of Class I verbs containing */i/ would have given a phonesthemic quality of passivity to adjectives with this root-vowel at the PGmc stage under consideration.
Another possibility is interference with *k^weit- by the semantically close *sweid-, found in OE _switol_ 'clear, evident' (not cited by Pokorny under *sweid-(1), IEW 1042, but given by Fraenkel, LitEW s.v. _svidé.ti_). This root could have yielded Gmc. *switt- and *swaitt- by Kluge's Law beside its /e/-grade *swi:t-, providing an analogical template to form *xWi:t- from *xWitt- and *xWaitt-. Reciprocal interference of *k^weit- upon *sweid- would explain Pokorny's isolated *sweit-, listed under *sweid-(1) but having causative usage ('sengen, brennen' against 'glänzen, schimmern'), and confined to Germanic.
Incidentally, it seems quite plausible that Pokorny's *sweid-(2) 'schwitzen' (IEW 1043) developed from *sweid-(1) as a euphemism, independently in several branches of IE. "Women glisten, men perspire, poor people sweat."
Returning now to 'deep', a very good reason to accept *dHeub- as the root is the inclusion of the 'dimple' group: OHG _tumphilo_, MHG _tümpfel_, etc. 'deep place in flowing or standing water, abyss', ME _dympull_ 'depression on a smooth surface, dimple', Du. _dompelen_ 'to plunge, dive, dip'. If *dHeub- is the root, these are simply derivatives of the inherited nasalized zero-grade *dHumb-. But if *dHeubH- is the root, not only must Gmc. *deup(p)a- be produced by an /e/-grade vr.ddhi with *-nó- or some unspecified analogical process(es), but then this result must become fodder for another analogical process which treats it as a primary full grade and inserts a nasal into the zero-grade. Not that such things could never happen, but the scenario of original *dHeub- and *dHumb- is more straightforward.
Of course, if there are any PIE */b/-denialists in this group, they will simply say there is no PIE */b/. The only basis I know of for completely ousting */b/ from PIE is glottalic theory, and that theory is shot down by pre-Grimm's Law loans from Gaulish into Germanic. I cannot explain why */b/ should be the rarest PIE consonant, but some consonant had to be, and it happens to be */b/.