--- In email@example.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
> > > 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
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,
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".