Terminology (Re: Piotr-)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "m_iacomi" <m_iacomi@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Michael J Smith wrote:
>
> > Are you using the term proto-Germanic synonymously with proto-

Indo

> > European? Because you seem to be saying that all IE languages came
> > from Proto-Germanic
>
> No, he does not use these two terms ansynonyms and he did not say
> that all IE languages came from Proto-Germanic. You asked:
>
> >>> Why is the 1st Germanic sound shift so essential in defining
> >>> Germanic as distinct from proto-Germanic? [...]
>
> ... and Piotr answered:
>
> >> [the 1st Germanic sound shift distinguishes] Not Germanic from
> >> proto-Germanic, [...]
>
> ... as you implicitly claimed with your question...
>
> >> [...] but pre-Germanic (and the whole rest of IE) from
> >> Proto-Germanic and its descendants (including the historically
> >> known Germanic languages).
>
> ... that is: the distinction operates _before_ Proto-Germanic
> not _after_ Proto-Germanic. Thus, Proto-Germanic (and subsequently
> deriving languages) form a class apart with respect to what was
> before it (Pre-Germanic) and other languages not having been
> subjected to this sound shift (the whole rest of IE -- before, as
> well as after this sound shift).

Whether or not they undergo a similar shift, e.g. (i.e.?) Thracian
and Armenian. What is the key point - fricativisation in the
development PIE *p > Proto-Germanic *f (ignoring Verner's law for
now)? The glottalic theory would say this was no more than [ph] >
[f], as also seen in Greek (where [ph] has a different origin), and
that apart from this, Germanic, Thracian and Armenian are
conservative. But then, conditioned changes of PIE *p > f are not
unknown - Iranian, Goidelic, Tuscan, even (albeit circuitously)
French.

Richard.