Re: [tied] Catching up again...

From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
Message: 4629
Date: 2000-11-11

On Sat, 11 Nov 2000 07:19:36 GMT, "Glen Gordon"
<glengordon01@...> wrote:

>Miguel:
>>How so? An analysis *woi-no- from *wei- "to turn, to wind" is
>>perfectly defendable (in fact, Gamkrelidze and Ivanov do so, IIRC).
>
>Gamkrelidze and Ivanov do many things, don't they... some not so good. Say
>no to an Anatolian-based homeland, boys and girls :) I'll admit to this
>*wei-no- idea being _very weakly_ defendable on the surface but we can't
>honestly call it a done-deal. Piotr's comments on this are valid.

They are. I was just surprised that you emphatically claimed the wine
word was *not* analyzable in IE, when the IE analysis (applicable both
to *woino- and to the Anatolian variant wiyana-) is the only analysis
I'm aware of. Honest question, again: what's the analysis in Semitic?

>Now, first, let's play Miguel's devil's advocate. If we say as you do,
>Miguel, that *weino- is a natively created word for "wine", we have three
>options:

I don't follow how the three options follow: there are some hidden
assumptions here about a time frame [6000-4000 BCE] and about who was
where [Europe, Anatolia] during that time frame that you haven't
spelled out, and that I wouldn't necessarily accept even if you had.

> 2. The word spread AGAINST the flow of farmers coming
> OUT of Anatolia during c.6000 BCE spread INTO Anatolia.
>
> Yeah, right. Add two cups of alien conspiracies
> and stir gently.

Playing the devil's advocate, this option is not crazy at all: did or
did not the words "potato", "chocolate", "tomato", "maize", etc.
spread AGAINST the flow of colonizers coming OUT of Europe into the
Americas INTO Europe?

>Miguel, what are you saying in the end? How do you support *weino- being
>native IE?

I'm not "supporting" it. It's a possibility.

>Actually I have been examining patterns in Kartvelian
>loans myself. I notice for instance the borrowing of Semitoid numerals with
>sibilants and how they disappear almost as though it would indicate a later
>sound change.

Which numerals are you referring to? The Kartvelian numerals are:

1. *s'xwa- (Svan es^xu) / *ert- (Geo. er(t)-)
2. *jo(:)r- (Svan jo:ri, Geo. (v)or-)
3. *sam- (Svan semi, Geo. sam-)
4. *os'txwo- (Svan wos^txw, Geo. otx-)
5. *xwis't- (Svan woxwis^d, Geo. xut-)
6. *u(k)s'wa- (Svan usgwa, Geo. ekvs-)
7. *s^wid- (Svan is^gwid, Geo. s^vid-)
8. *arwa- (Svan ara, Geo. rua-)
9. *c'xra- (Svan c^xara, Geo. cxra-)
10. *as't- (Svan jes^d, Geo. at-)
20. *oc'- (Geo. (v)oc-, Megr. ec^-)
100. *as'ir- (Svan as^ir, Geo. as-)

The numbers 4 (*ok^toh3) and 6 (*uswek^s) look borrowed from IE, the
numbers 5 (*xamis-t-) , 7 (*seb3-t-), 8 (*?arba3-t-), 9 (*tis3a-t-),
10(?) (*3as'ra-t-) and 100 (*3is'ra:) appear to be Semitic loans.

The only disappearing sibilants I can see are in the cases where Svan
s^t corresponds to Georgian-Zan t, a well-known regular alternation
(unfortunately ignored by Klimov in his Kartvelian etymological
dictionary [Klimov's reconstructions are thus: *s'xwa-/*ert-, *jor-,
*sam-, *otxo-, *xut-, *eks'w-, *s^wid-, *arwa-, *c'xra, *at-, *oc'-,
*as'ir-]).


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...