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

Re: Nordwestblock, Germani, and Grimm's law

Expand Messages
  • Torsten
    ... If you have any objections, please tell me. ... That was Schrijver; I haven t included it. ... I hope this refreshes your memory
    Message 1 of 59 , Feb 7, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, johnvertical@... wrote:
      >
      > Sorry for not combining this with the previous reply.
      >
      > > > > t > s is a weird consonant alternation?
      > > >
      > > > Like I just said, it's unmotivated, therefore weird (to see it
      > > > in this supposed word, not in general).
      > >
      > > I assume one of the transmission languages was the language of
      > > geminates (which I assume is the same as the ar-/ur- language),
      > > and that type of alternation is included the defining
      > > alternations for that language.
      >
      > So you get out of assuming one sound change by making some
      > assumptions about the transfer route involved. I'm not sure if
      > that's helping.

      If you have any objections, please tell me.

      > Also I recall the phonetically unconvincing *kunt vs. Uralic
      > *kun´s´i "urine" vs. Baltic *ku:Si "pubic hair" (which doesn't even
      > involve a plain *s at any point) as one "example" of this change.

      That was Schrijver; I haven't included it.

      > Was there ever any more?

      I hope this refreshes your memory
      http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/62677

      > > > Precisely the point I was making: wanderwords such as "tea" do
      > > > not require assuming any sound laws just for the purpose of
      > > > their propagation.
      > >
      > > That is assuming tea/chai is a typical wanderwort which it isn't,
      > > since its two forms were borrowed into written languages, and
      > > their propagation since then is thus documented. Here is a real
      > > wanderwort from Pokorny:
      >
      > Shifting goalposts. I've not called that stuff Wanderwörts, and I
      > would prefer not to.

      I would prefer for you to call them Wanderwörter. But it's a free country.

      > > You obviously have a beef with Pokorny and Prellwitz. Please keep
      > > me out of it.
      >
      > Can't do, if your approach is to appeal to "the same privilege of
      > exemption they enjoy". And it seems that I would not grant the
      > words YOU were referring to any "privilege of exemption".

      So if I choose a Wanderwort, you get to decide if it is?

      > Most older etymological dictionaries contain plenty of invalid
      > comparisions.

      True. How is that relevant here?

      >
      > > > > You misunderstand. I was pointing out that such words would
      > > > > be irrelevant to the new concept of placing the
      > > > > responsibility for providing a certain number of cavalry on a
      > > > > particular group or area.
      > > >
      > > > Sounds better.
      > > >
      > > > > No doubt some languages would use existing words, but others
      > > > > used the new one.
      > > >
      > > > Yes, that sounds fine too. But it does not seem that this
      > > > actual specific meaning ever surfaces in the words you have in
      > > > there.
      > >
      > > What specific meaning and in where? Please be more specific.
      >
      > "Group of civilians tasked with providing a certain number of
      > cavalry" for *LuN-.

      Wrong, *kaN-t-. And there was no professional military. The society was the army was the society, as in to a certain extent until recently in Turkey and some Latin american countries.
      A meaning attested anywhere at all, or made up by you?
      >
      >
      > > > > > > Note that it is involved in the "long" sense.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > I have no idea what you mean by that.
      > > > > >
      > > > > Pokorny here
      > > > > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/65525
      > > >
      > > > A root meaning "long", so?
      > >
      > > A root in *dl-, which is very rare combination in PIE. Therefore
      > > it is tempting to connect it with other PIE roots in *dl-
      >
      > Non sequitur.

      Temptatus sum, ergo secutus est.

      > Therefore it is tempting to consider that they have the same source
      > (as in some substrate), but it does not follow they should have any
      > further connection: since we are alreddy assuming this was a
      > perfectly normal sound in our substrate, there is no problem in
      > having more than one root that has it.

      True. You may assume that if you want, I'll test the possibility they are related.

      >
      > > > Basic vocabulary does not tend to come from sophisticated
      > > > cultural concepts.
      > >
      > > That is generally assumed, and I think that's wrong. Vocabularies
      > > abound with words having suffered a sociological deroute.
      >
      > Vocabularies in general, yes. Swadesh-list-level basic vocabulary,
      > no.

      Yes; see above.
      >
      > > > I don't see you even trying to explain there how a single *L
      > > > could yield all of *g *gl *dVl *d *l etc.
      > > > That has to rake up some half a dozen assumptions at least.
      > >
      > > No assumptions, those are all documented IRL.
      >
      > All those substitutions are attested elsewhere, you mean? The
      > assumptions are that this or that particular substitution happened.
      > "Possible sound change" is still different from "sound change for
      > which there is evidence".

      That's right, there is evidence for them elsewhere.


      > > > > > > So it has to do with ordered vs. unordered (single file)
      > > > > > > march through the landscape.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > More assumptions.
      > >
      > > No, this is part of the proposal.
      >
      > Same thing. All these assumptions are part of your proposal.

      The proposal was that *Lun,- and *kam-t- were borrowed together as antonyms.

      >
      > > > > It's the way to do it.
      > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marching
      > > >
      > > > First this was supposed to refer to unordered masses, now it's
      > > > supposed to also refer to the military too, and also in a
      > > > specific formation this time.
      > >
      > > What 'this'? Which of *kaN-t- and *Lun,-?
      >
      > The latter, if I've stayed on track.

      I'm afraid you haven't.

      > You're trying to derive *LuN > "unordered group" > "marching
      > soldiers" > "line" > "long", right?

      No, leave out the "marching soldiers".

      >
      > > > Not to say that this particular meaning also seems to be
      > > > unattested.
      > >
      > > Which particular meaning?
      >
      > "Soldiers marching in a line".

      Erh, what?


      Torsten
    • Tavi
      ... to ... to ... Besides Spanish, these words can be found in other Romance languages, although with a different semantic distribution. For example,
      Message 59 of 59 , Jan 26, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Tavi" wrote:
        >
        > - Iberian e-ban- 'to set up' (debanen = Latin curavit in a bilingual
        > inscription), Basque eman 'to put, to place; to get used to; to dress'
        > - Hispano-Romance *mania > Spanish maña 'skill; trick; bad habit'
        > - Hispano-Romance *a-mani-a:re > Spanish amañar 'to fix; to rig, to
        > doctor; to concot', amañarse 'to manage (oneself)'
        > - Hispano-Romance *a-ppani- > Basque ap(h)ain 'elegant', ap(h)aindu
        'to
        > prepare, to set; to ornate'
        > - Hispano-Romance *a-ppani-a:re > Spanish apañar 'to gather, to
        > collect; to take (by force); to attire; to dress, to garnish (food);
        to
        > fix, to repair; to manage to do something', apañarse 'to manage
        > (oneself)'
        > Note: Semantic drift is comparable to Latin e:lega:ns 'refined,
        > distinguished' from legere 'to gather, to pile up'.
        >
        Besides Spanish, these words can be found in other Romance languages,
        although with a different semantic distribution. For example, Portuguese
        amanhar(se) is 'to prepare; to ornate (oneself)', while apanhar is 'to
        gather'.

        I suppose the distribution of *b- > m- ~ p- might reflect an ancient
        isogloss in the donor language(s).
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.