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

Re: [tied] Italo-Celtic dialect base words?

Expand Messages
  • dgkilday57
    ... Of course I could be wrong, but I do not recall proposing *f *xW, and I cannot follow your argument about it. ... In Germanic we do have *kWu- *ku-,
    Message 1 of 77 , Feb 18, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <sean@...> wrote:
      > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" wrote:
      > >
      > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Rick McCallister wrote:
      > > >
      > > > Could it have been Lusitanian? That could count for the P.
      > >
      > > Lusitanian has *ikko- from *h1ek^wo- 'horse', so I would expect its 'wolf' word to be *ulko-, *wolko-, or *lukko-, depending on the form it started with.
      > >
      > > Many years ago Miguel suggested that the tribal name Volcae meant 'Wolves'. That may well be, if they belonged to the Illyro-Lusitanian branch and used the *wl.kWo- form. They were associated with the Silva Hercy:nia, and if Proto-Celtic borrowed Volcan *Perku:nia: as *Ferku:nia:, that would explain the lack of *p...kW assimilation.
      > >
      > Why do you think so many words were borrowed? You use that excuse whenever any ev. doesn't fit your rules; don't you think you could just be wrong? f > xW would have hapened in Proto-Celtic long before this borrowing by one group in one place long after Celtic split up.

      Of course I could be wrong, but I do not recall proposing *f > *xW, and I cannot follow your argument about it.

      > > I do not find Sean's ad-hoc claim that Celtic did not assimilate *perkWu- to *kWerkWu- convincing,
      > It's not ad hoc. kW > k by u first, which is seen in Greek, too. Compare fairhwus = world, fairguni = mtn Got; showing that at least sometimes KW>K by u, apparently also after u in the pronouns ugkis vs. igqis . *kWuruz > kaurus shows it's fairly old (before ur>or , at least). Some analogy, assuming the change was regular, later occurred (qim-, qum-, etc.).

      In Germanic we do have *kWu- > *ku-, *gWu- > *gu-, also *swu- > *su- (LG _sump_ against _swamp_, ablaut-variants) and *fwu- > *fu- (_funk_ < *fwunkka-), with analogical restoration in pronouns. Obviously this took place before root-/u/ and /o/ fell together in Gothic.

      But it remains ad hoc to assert Proto-Celtic *perkWu- > *perku- > *ferku- > *herku- to explain ONE FORM, Hercy:nia, as native Celtic, when Latin _quercus_ demands Proto-Italic *kWerkWu-, not *perkWu-.

      > >
      > even though Bolelli proposed a similar makeshift to salvage Hercy:nia as pure Celtic (Cronologia relativa di alcuni fenomeni della fonetica celtica, Ricerche linguistiche 5:101-4, 1962). Labialization of a labiovelar is fairly widespread, but assimilation of a labial to a following labiovelar is rare, and it strains credulity to suppose that Celtic and Italic did this independently,
      > >
      > It doesn't have to be independent; if kW > k by u happened in one dia., that doesn't stop both from having p-kW > kW-kW a little later (though the rule isn't as simple as you say).
      > It could still be independent. Compare Skt and Greek, both having variants of Ch-Ch > C-Ch, even though no other IE felt the need to do any such thing. Comparatively, kW > p in various env. is very common.

      But *p...kW > *kW...kW is NOT very common.

      > >
      > resulting in Itc. *kWerkWu- (Lat. _quercus_) against Ctc. *ferku- (or whatever Sean supposes). I find it much more plausible that Ctc. also had *kWerkWu-, leading to Gaul. *perpu-.
      > >
      > > I do not know if Perpignan, presumably from fundus *Perpinia:nus owned by a Gallo-Roman *Perpinius, can be cited as evidence. It would require a somewhat awkward Gallo-Latin 2nd-decl. *perpus, -i: 'native oak' vel sim. against expected 4th-decl. *perpus, -u:s.

      Also, this place-name is conceivably derived from fundus *Perpenna:nus, owned by an expatriate with the attested Etrusco-Latin name Perpenna, so I will not try to cite it as evidence.

    • Tavi
      ... not mistaken, Petr suggested that Starostin s f should be replaced by X W or XW. ... based? ...
      Message 77 of 77 , Mar 9, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Tavi" <oalexandre@...> wrote:
        > A similar case would be IE *penkWe- '5' ~ NEC *fimk?wV 'fist'. If I'm
        not mistaken, Petr suggested that Starostin's f should be replaced by
        X\W or XW.
        > > What are the attested words on which this NEC reconstruction is
        > >
        > See here:
        > > Very interesting. The phoneme *f is relatively rare, and the
        correspondences for this lexeme are regular. That does not exclude
        borrowing from an IE source after the breakup of Proto-NEC.
        > I strongly disagree. The NEC word means 'fist', a meaning which in IE
        only appears in a *derivated form* found in Germanic, Slavic and Baltic
        (the latter with initial k-), while the bare lexeme shifted to '5' at an
        early date, probably in the Neolithic as other numerals. So in my
        opinion this would be another case where a word from a language ancestor
        to IE is preserved in NEC.
        The cases of IE 'bear' and Germanic 'horse' would also fall in this

        Unlike Starostin and Bengtson, I don't think all the proto-NEC lexicon
        is from Vasco-Caucasian (aka Sino-Caucasian), as apparently there's a
        significant portion whose origin is Eurasiatic (aka Nostratic). Also
        Yeniseian seems to be in a similar (or even worse) position, being a
        geographical outlayer. As a rule of thumb, I consider a root to be VC if
        it's attested in at least two of the following families: NEC, Burushaski
        and Sino-Tibetan.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.