Re: [tied] Italo-Celtic dialect base words?
- --- In email@example.com, "stlatos" <sean@...> wrote:
>Your *f > *xW is unsupported, regardless of your pretzel-like rhetoric.
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@> wrote:
> > --- In email@example.com, "stlatos" <sean@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "dgkilday57" wrote:
> > > > 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.
> Since in Proto-Celtic p > h- / -w- / -x- , p > f > xW first is most likely. You didn't propose that part; I'm talking about your proposal that (after that change?) a borrowing with p- was adapted as f- and arguing against it since all branches make it clear xW existed within them and the name of a place wouldn't have been retained from Proto-Celtic all the way down to the language of one group who THEN happened to live next to the place where the people they supposedly borrowed it from still lived and talked. There's plenty else to say about this, but that's enough.
> > > > I do not find Sean's ad-hoc claim that Celtic did not assimilate *perkWu- to *kWerkWu- convincing,I did not give a complete listing. Certainly *xWu- > *xu- as shown by Go. _hunsl_, ON _hu:sl_, OE _hu:s(e)l_ 'sacred offering, consecrated host, housel' against OCS _sve,tU_ 'holy'.
> > >
> > > 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-,
> So no xWu > xu ? Are you intent on reg. for fairhwus ? It could even be analogy, not opt.
> >See also ON _sund_, OE _sund_ 'act of swimming' against OE _swimman_ 'to swim'. Obviously *swm.- was allowed before syllabic nasals were vocalized with *-u-, likewise *xWn.- in 'housel'.
> also *swu- > *su- (LG _sump_ against _swamp_, ablaut-variants)
> No ev. It could be wm, > um before N, > uN , if that even existed in P-Gmc, or an IE dif. (I doubt swm, was allowed).
> >Skt. _pa:vaka's_ 'cleansing fire' implies Gmc. *fwunkko: reflected as MLG _vunke_ 'spark', OHG _funcho_ gl. 'semen' i.e. 'seed of a fire, spark', Upper German _funke_ (first attested in the 14th-c. Bav. of Wolfram v. Eschenbach, borrowed into NHG as _Funke_).
> and *fwu- > *fu- (_funk_ < *fwunkka-),
> No ev. It's clear fw > f before any V (fón (n) funins (g) Got; fire E; ) and since * juwunga- > * junga- (opt.) you can't say the order * fuwunka- > * funka- before uw>w couldn't work.
> >Consult an elementary textbook.
> with analogical restoration in pronouns. Obviously this took place before root-/u/ and /o/ fell together in Gothic.
> What do you mean "fell together"? Gothic's oddity is ur > or ( aur ) and ir > er ( air ), etc.
> > But it remains ad hoc to assert Proto-Celtic *perkWu- > *perku- > *ferku- > *herku- to explain ONE FORM, Hercy:nia, as native Celtic,As expected, the obligatory Whalenian Armenian. Your argumentation boils down to this: "Armenian has some odd outcomes, so I can posit any outcomes I please in any languages I want in order to force any etymological equation I choose. And since nobody here is an expert on Armenian, I can claim the language offers abundant evidence for optional soundlaws, and none of you suckers can prove me wrong! Nyeah, nyeah, nyeah!"
> Often ONE FORM is all we get for a change, and Celtic is the only European l. with p > h , making any other expl. so unlikely as to req. much more than unsubstantiated guesses.
> when Latin _quercus_ demands Proto-Italic *kWerkWu-, not *perkWu-.
> So? I didn't say anything against Proto-Italic, only Proto-Celtic had kWu > ku (at that stage, at least). They were either indep. changes or the same change in dia. that had already started to separate, creating an outcome sim. to Iranian groups in which all show d > l , but some had t > d in dif. env. first, creating the same outcome at one stage, but not the same C in every word.
> > > >
> > > 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.
> That's why I said they were either indep. changes or the same change ("It doesn't have to be independent; ... It could still be independent."), and described how both would be in accord w other ev. either way. I favor it being the same change, but I have no specific ev.
> > > >
> > > 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-.
> > > >
> What is more plausible to you isn't more plausible based on ev. In Arm., just as Celtic, p > h is most common but sometimes p > y:
> hing = 5, yisun = 50 Ar;
> paru- Av; polús G; yolov -i- Ar; filu Got;
> pí:van-, pí:vari:- (f) = fat S; pí:o:n, pí:eira G; yoyr -i- = fat Ar;
> This oddity for p- can't be expl. by borrowing, since Arm. is the only IE l. in which p becomes anything so dif. than P or KW (and shows many of such oddities: dw- > erk-, etc.). In Celtic, p > h isn't even an oddity, and you still try to expl. it by borrowing since you think p...kW > kW...kW MUST be reg. and MUST NOT be superseded by a more specific env. so it won't be even slightly dif. in Celtic and Italic. This is beyond an affection for regularity, it's complete esthetic intolerance of what you happen to dislike.
> Sim., in:
> yaxs^ti- (cp) = branch Av; yas.t.í-m = stick/staff/perch/twig/post S;
> kst in yas.t.í- isn't reg., but it can't be expl. by borrowing since there's no other group between them in which it is reg. There are many more ex.
Given the great diversity of Iranian lgs., what makes you so certain that attested Old Arm. did not come from a similar large group, with plenty of borrowing between neighbors (as in Romance lgs.), leading to your splendid mirage of optional soundlaws?
- --- In email@example.com, "Tavi" <oalexandre@...> wrote:
>not mistaken, Petr suggested that Starostin's f should be replaced by
> A similar case would be IE *penkWe- '5' ~ NEC *fimk?wV 'fist'. If I'm
X\W or XW.
> > What are the attested words on which this NEC reconstruction is
> See here:
>correspondences for this lexeme are regular. That does not exclude
> > Very interesting. The phoneme *f is relatively rare, and the
borrowing from an IE source after the breakup of Proto-NEC.
>only appears in a *derivated form* found in Germanic, Slavic and Baltic
> I strongly disagree. The NEC word means 'fist', a meaning which in IE
(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