Re: Portuguese, Spanish bode "buck"
- --- In email@example.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@...> wrote:
>Possible, yes, but not sure. There're many possibilities, but certainly not all them actually happened.
> Sumerian _urud_ 'copper' (the -u is the Akkadian nominative suffix
> from glossaries) is in my opinion borrowed from Balkano-Danubian *wrod-
> > Perhaps a better reconstruction would be *wrud-. However, it's anything
> > but easy to explain how the word could have reached Southern Mesopotamy
> > from the Balkans, unless you align yourself with Casule and his theory
> > of Burushaski being an offshoot of Paleo-Balkan IE.
> This has nothing to do with Casule or Burushaski. I posit practical copper technology originating in the Balkans and spreading to Sumeria along with the Balkano-Danubian word for 'red (metal), copper'.
> cognate with PIE *h1r(e)udH-.As I said before, the "laryngeal" is actually part of the prefix. On the other hand, you've got still to explain how *w- originated from *h1- (*?-).
> > As I said before, Greek e- in words such as e-ruthrós is a *prefix*,
> > possibly from a fossilized article *?i- (hence h1 = ?), so the bare root
> > would be *reudh- ~ *rudh- (please notice I keep traditional "voiced
> > aspirated" for the sake of clarity, not because I endorse them).
> > Otherwise, you'd have a hard time explaining sound correspondences of
> > the initial consonant.
> Among well-known IE languages, initial laryngeals in this position are generally dropped outside Greek and Armenian. This laryngeal is no prefix, but part of the root. What convinced me that so-called prothetic vowels in Greek reflect initial preconsonantal laryngeals is the elegant way they clear up the problem of so-called Attic reduplication. Attempts to explain this phenomenon without laryngeals have not succeeded.
> We are not talking about a specialized color like mauve or taupe. AllActually, mine was a rethoric question. According to your etymological proposal, I must suppose a meaning shift from 'rose' to 'red'.
> of us have cut ourselves and seen blood, and we label it red.
> > Are you suggesting the original meaning of the word was 'blood', later
> > shifted to 'red'?
> No. Such a shift is not necessary.
> The borrowings of *wrod- into IE lgs. mostly mean 'rose',That's right within IE, but this doesn't exclude additional cognates in Pelasgian and Etruscan.
> > Not really. This is a different root 'thorny bush' found in Italic
> > *ruTo- 'bramble' > Latin rubus and North Germanic *wruT-/*wrud-
> > 'sweetbrier' > Norwegian ol, orr, erre, Swedish arre. Also Tuscan
> > dialectal forms such as rasa, ràzina, razzòla must derive from
> > Etruscan *rathia.
> No, 'rose' has nothing to do with the 'thorn-bush' word unless you follow Georgiev with his PIE *wrudH- > Pelasgian *wrud-. The correct cognate of Lat. _rubus_ is OE _word_, of identical meaning.
> I discussed the Tuscan forms when dealing with Lat. _radius_ as a borrowing from Late Etruscan. I see no basis to connect them with any of the IE words, or with 'rose'.But you can't ignore the fact roses *are* thorny bushes, so the semantic connection is sound.
> Georgiev's Pelasgian is a hypothetical satem language, which is not atThe problem is not all these are necessarily synchronic, so there's a good possibility we're dealing with several substrate layers of different chronologies. So Beekes' Pre-Greek might just be the more recent one.
> the same time-depth as my "West Pontic" (now "Balkano-Danubian"), a
> sister language to Old PIE. [...] My view is that the Pre-Greek
> substrate proper was Balkano-Danubian Chalcolithic, but some relics of
> an earlier East Mediterranean Neolithic substrate are recoverable.
> > Actually, Georgiev's own chronology is Neolithic, so it's *older* than
> > yours, which leans towards the Kurgan theory. In fact, he regarded his
> > Pre-Greek IE substrate as descending from the languages spoken by
> > Mesolithic autochthonous hunter-gatherers, so in that sense he was a
> > "continuist", although certainly not in the same way than Alinei et al.
> > In my opinion, the problem lies on the misidentification of Pelasgian
> > with Thracian, an actual (although poorly attested) IE-satem language,
> > which nevertheless contributed (in the same way than e.g. Phrygian) to
> > Greek lexicon with some loanwords. This explains why most of Georgiev's
> > and Windekens' (especially the latter) Pre-Greek IE etymologies are
> > flawed.
> That is a major part of the problem, yes. Contributions to Greek from Illyrian, Thracian, and other IE lgs. must be weeded out before attempting to characterize Pre-Greek.
> > Eteocretan isalabre 'goat cheese' can be analyzed as a compoundActually, this is about *notation*, not origin. I prefer to use std IPA symbols rather than "traditional" ones such as the "thorn", y, and so on.
> > *isa-lawre, where *isa would be related to IE *aigJ-o- 'goat' and *lawre
> > to Greek tu:rós 'cheese'. In my opinion, this and other evidences
> > would suggest Minoan/Eteocretan was a *superstrate* to the actual
> > Pelasgian.
> Neither equation is particularly convincing, and the Whalenoid notation gJ for g^ is unwarranted, since nothing suggests that *g^ originated by palatalizing *g in Old PIE.
> More likely the former was originally velar, the latter uvular, with the satem group maintaining the distinction while advancing both articulations forward, while the centum group moved only the uvulars forward and merged them with the velars.In some cases, palatalized velars originated from "centumization" of sibilant affricates, as in Caucasian loanwords such as *H1ekJw-o- 'horse'.
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:
>If the original sense was 'oaken', it could continue *gWl.h2-ko- from an archaic root-noun *gWelh2-s, *gWl.h2- 'oak' otherwise attested in words for 'acorn', Grk. _balanos_, Lat. _glans_ (poss. P-Italic Blandusia), etc. (in Pokorny under *gWel-(3), IEW 472-3).
> 2013/4/3 dgkilday57 <dgkilday57@...>
> > **
> > --- In email@example.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
> > <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@> wrote:
> > >
> > > 2013/4/2, dgkilday57 <dgkilday57@>:
> > > >
> > > > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
> > > > <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> 2013/3/29, dgkilday57 <dgkilday57@>:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > --- In email@example.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
> > > >> > <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@> wrote:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> (...)
> > > >> >> For beccus I had already proposed, following the suggestions by
> > > >> >> Delamarre 2003: 70 and 80, a root *bek- (or maybe *gWek-) 'sting',
> > > >> >> unless *bekko-s < *gWet-ko-s (cf. *gWet- 'bulge', Pokorny 1959:
> > 481).
> > > >> >
> > (...)
> > > > DGK:
> > > > A more serious objection is that if *-ko- was productive with bare
> > /e/-grade
> > > > roots, there should be no shortage of *-ko-formations with such roots
> > having
> > > > different auslauts, not just those in *-k- or other stops expected to
> > > > assimilate to a suffixal *k-.
> > > >
> > > > Matasovic' refers Celt. *balko- to PIE *bel-, which I do not follow. It
> > > > seems to me that he implicitly assumes a laryngeal root-extension (and
> > I
> > > > have no problem with *-h1 or *-h2) and zero-grade. Of course,
> > *bHelh1/2- or
> > > > *gWelh1/2- would work equally well. But for your desired /e/-grade we
> > must
> > > > manufacture a root *bh2/4el-, *bHh2/4el-, or *gWh2/4el-.
> > >
> > > *Bhr.: You know I prefer long /o/ grade with Osthoff's shortening
> > Yes, but your only argument in favor of /o:/-grade in such words was that
> > I could not disprove it.
> *Bhr.: it's the received view as well; anyway, can You explain *balko-
> with a better (please note "better") reconstruction?
> > > >No, I am only showing that the example is controversial.
> > > > (...)
> > > > Anyhow, your theory of Celtic tenues geminatae needs to be checked for
> > > > plausibility against the frequency of parallel formations from roots
> > which
> > > > do not produce geminates with the same suffixes.
> > > >
> > > > DGK
> > > >
> > > *Bhr.: Handbooks give Russian poperek 'transversal' (Old Church
> > > Slavonic pre:kU) < *per-ko-s and Greek-Indic isogloss *dheh1-ko-,
> > > -kah2 'receptacle' > Old Indic dha:k'a-s, Greek th'e:ke: (unless You
> > > prefer a lengthened grade *dhe:h1-ko-!).
> > The Slavic words could just as well continue *per-kWo-s.
> *Bhr.: this implies You admit that *-kWo- suffixes can be added to e-grade
> roots and that only *-ko- cannot, doesn't it?
> > Latin _facio:_, _fe:ci:_, _factum_ shows that *dHeh1- took aYes, provided the stem is substantival, e.g. Gallo-Latin _ambicus_ 'kind of fish' (Pol. Silv., ms. _ambions_ corrected by Mommsen) against Gaul. _ambis_ 'river' (Non.).
> > /k/-extension, and the Greek-Indic noun could just as well be built on
> > *dHeh1k-.
> > *Bhr.: is there a sequence where a suffix *-ko- can be recognized as such
> instead of either a possible root-enlargement or part of a suffix
> >The */t/ is only a phonetic possibility which K. included.
> > (...)
> > > An instance beyond any doubt is represented by Old Icelandic brj'oskr
> > > 'cartilage', Swiss German briesch 'colostrum', maybe Albanian breshkE
> > > f. 'tortoise' (unless one accepts */ou/ > /e/ instead of /a/ in
> > > non-metaphonetic environments) from root *bhreus- 1 'swell' (Pokorny
> > > 1959: 170-171).
> > Koebler cites only a strong nt. _brj'osk_ 'Knorpel', Gmc. *breu(t)skam.
> *Bhr.: right, my fault in copying; I'm very sorry and beg Your pardon. On
> the other side, */t/ is by no way assured
> > The root could be the simplex *bHreu- 'spriessen, schwellen' (Pok. 169),Yes, *bHreu- with an /s/-extension, but *bHreu-skom needs no extension.
> > making the IE formation *bHreu-skom, not *bHreus-kom.
> Verb stem **brÅ«sana-n *suggests indeed root **bhreus-*
> >True. When time permits I must check the whole material.
> > > I think one single uncontroversial case is sufficient to prove that a
> > > R(e)-ko- scheme is possible (...)
> > (...)
> > As for uncontroversial examples of *R(e)-ko-, there may be some, but I had
> > in mind a statistical analysis of such purported forms within Celtic.
> > Something may be possible but highly improbable.
> > *Bhr.: if You have checked the whole material, please let us know it; if
> You don't, "highly improbable" only expresses an impression of Yours
> >Set.-roots and living /n/-suffixation complicate matters. But obviously I must check the whole material before making any pronouncements. And I must finish my CURRENT projects first, namely a revised theory of secondary labialism in Gmc. (i.e. the 'wolf' problem) and a convincing backdating of Kluge's Law to Old Western IE.
> > > Note also that this case has been made for *gWet-ko-s, which I added
> > > as a merely prudential alternative to *bek-n'o-s with Stokes-Zupitza's
> > > Law; this means that if I weren't be able to justify R(e)-ko- my
> > > reconstruction *bek-n'o-s would become relatively stronger
> > Assuming you could justify *bek- in the first place, as well as Zupitza's
> > formulation of Stokes' Law from a sufficient number of other examples.
> > DGK
> *Bhr.: I can't understand how You explain preserved sequences of media and
> nasal in Celtic if Your "MacBain's Law" predicts *medias geminatas *if the
> accent was before the cluster and Your version of Stokes' Law *tenues
> geminatas *if the accent was after the cluster