Of Vennemann's proposals

From: tgpedersen
Message: 37222
Date: 2005-04-16

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
wrote:
> Michael Smith napisał(a):
>
> > Piotr, do any of Vennemann's Bascoid etymologies have any merit
or are they all
> > rather suspicious?
>
> I'd take them all with a _very_ large grain of *sal-. There's an
> excellent rebuttal by Peter Kitson (1996, "British and European
> river names", _Transactions of the Philological Society_ 94: 73-
> 118), where Vennemann's analyses are thoroughly (if tactfully)
> demolished. Larry Trask, in an 1995 article, wrote about numerous
> problems with Vennemann's handling of Basque data and use (or
> rather misuse) of Proto-Basque reconstructions. See also:
>
> http://www.ling.ed.ac.uk/linguist/issues/15/15-1878.html
>

"
1. to wake (V.'s p. 358) w-q-y Ar., Eth. 'bewahren' (to keep,
preserve) Akk. /(w)aq!�(m)/, O.-Ass./waq!a:'um/ 'warten, harren,
bewahren, achten auf, aufmerken' (to wait, wait for, keep/preserve,
attend to, pay attention); original meaning of the Ar. root/ w-q!-
y / is 'to keep, to preserve, to keep watch, caution'. We should
point that it is wrong to compare the Eng. word with initial /w-/ to
the Akk. form where the initial /w-/ is presupposed on the basis of
Ar. /w-/.

Initial PS *w- had zero reflex in Akk., see table of correspondences
of the consonant phonemes in Dolgopolsky (1999), pp. 16-18; the same
applies to example #4. Even there is some sound resemblance, one
would wonder why such word should be borrowed from Smc. (because
this semantic field doesn't reflect tangible realia).
"

Vennemann never proposed that the word was borrowed from Proto-
Semitic and in the 'original meaning'. Hayim Sheynin's criticism
here is irrelevant. Why should only words designating 'tangible
realia', not institutions, be borrowed?


"
3. V. claims after M�ller (1911) the striking resemblance between PG
+/a�al/ and the Ar. root /?-^t-l/ as the Gmc. term for rulers (OE
oe^del- ; PG +/a�al/, Gr. Adel). This root was also known in a
corresponding Hb. form /?as!�l/ 'noble'. Analyzing semantic
background of Ar. /?-^t-l/ we should mention that the original
meaning of it was 'to take root, to become rooted'. The meaning
of 'noble' and further 'wealthy' is probably developed with a later
semantic extension that happened during social development of pre-
Islamic Arab tribes. In Hb. it remains 'noble'. Nowhere it
corresponds to a semantic field 'rulers'. For the period V. is
concerned with this Semitic word couldn't mean 'ruler'.
"

German 'Adel' doesn't mean "ruler". It means "nobility".
German 'edel' means "noble".


". to ward (V.'s p. 360) Smc. /w-r-d / y-r-d/ Akk. /(w)ara:du(m)/ 'to
descend', /(w)ardu(m)/ 'slave, servant (also of kings, in palaces, of
gods, in temples)', 'a (special kind of) craftsman, (perhaps)
master-builder', /(w)ardutu(m)/ 'slavery, servitude; service (also
of vassal, or in politics)'; /(w)ardatu(m)/ 'girl, young woman (also
said of goddesses and female demons)'. This historical
reconstruction is wrong on account of w-, see example #1. We need to
stress that the general meaning of the root w-r-d / y-r-d in all
Smc. languages is 'to descend' and therefore has nothing to do
with 'to ward'.
"

German 'warten auf' "wait on", cf. Engl. 'waiter'. Again, Vennemann
has not proposed that the loan was from Proto-Semitic and in
the 'original meaning'.


"5. Ru� (V.s p. 256) Common Smc. /q!-t!-r/ or /q!-t-r/ 'Rauch', Akk.
/q!utru/ 'Rauch / smoke', Hb. /q!�t!�ret/ 'R�ucherwerk', Arc.
/q!itra:/; S.-Ar.-Eth. /q!eta:r�:/ 'R�ucherwerk' N.-Ar. /q!ut!a:r
(un)/ 'smell of cooked meat, of aloeswood'; /qut!r/ and /qut!
ur/ 'aloeswood'. It seems to me that smoke was known to the Indo-
European people before their contacts with "Atlantic" people. It
barely resembles the mentioned Smc. word acoustically. Moreover V.
overlooked that the smoke denoted by the cited root /q!-t!-r/ is not
a general smoke, it is a smoke, an odour of (burning) sacrifice or a
smell of alloeswood or incense. In B.-Hb. the root /q!-t!-r/ as
action belonging to ritual is juxtaposed to the root /�-^s-
n/ 'smoke'. When in modern Smc. languages the meaning of root /q!-t!-
r/ q!-t-r/ appears as regular smoke, this occurs because of the
modern semantic extension, as for example in M.- Hb. /miq!
t!'eret/ '(smoke)pipe', but 'to smoke pipe' - /l� -�a^s^s�n
miq!t!'eret/. Thus V.'s approximation if not impossible, but at
least unproven and suspicious.

Therefore it would be much more logical to adopt Pokorny's root er-/
or-/ r- Erweiterung reu-s- [Pokorny (1927-30), p. 332]. Also this
Gmc. root looks akin to Gk. reo: / reu:ma / re�somai 'flow'
"

HS criticizes V. for proposing that the Germani should have borrowed
a word for such a common thing as smoke, then invalidates his own
argument by pointing out that the Semitic word means smoke of a
sacrifice (which would make the word special enough to have been
borrowed). Also, apparently he doesn't know German 'Russ'
means "soot", not "smoke".


"6. Earth / Erde (V.'s pp. 254-55, 559, 614) PS +?ard! Akk./ers!etu/
'Land, Erde', Hb. /?'eres!/, Arc. /?ar�a:/, S.-Ar. /?ard!
(un)/ 'earth, land' (NB: all the etymologies cited from "the school
Semitic languages"). The Proto-Semitic form of this word is */?
aras!/ , see Dolgopolsky (1999), p. 25, #44. NB. Dolgopolsky used
slightly different phonetic symbols.

Since we cannot imagine ancient Arabs living in pre-historic
Germanic lands, V.'s reconstruction of etymology for Gmc. earth /
Erde is impossible. The th / d of earth / Erde are wrong phonemes in
this reconstruction. In our opinion, Pokorny (1927-30), p. 332 has a
satisfactory etymology for this word sub v. er- (er-t- / er-w-) and
there is no need to look for a Smc. etymon even it seems very
similar.
The word /?'eres!/ is a common word in Hebrew Bible as in modern
Hebrew, the common Ar. /?ard!(un)/ is frequent in all the periods
and in various dialects. Nevertheless this is irrelevant for the
etymology of earth / Erde.
"

The only criticism is that there can't have been any contact,
therefore the words can't have been borrowed. If that's his belief,
why bother with linguistic refutations at all?


"8. WG and NG +folk- 'Kriegsschar, Volk' (V.s p. 665) 'division of
an army', Gk. pe'lekys, Rs. polk; according to V., derived from Smc.
root /p-l-h!/ 'spalten' Cf. Akk. /pilakku/ 'Spindel'. There is no
semantic basis for this suggestion. Also both Akk. and Hb.
consonant /p/ stems from PS */p/ (see Dolgopolsky 1999, p. 16-18),
Ar. reflex /f/ is of later provenance (innovation in Arabic) and do
not have any relation to the sound f of WG and NG +folk.
"

HS seems to believe V proposed the loans occurred after the Grimm
shift. He didn't.


"10. Haus, house (V.'s p. 260) Akk. /x!us!s!u / Ar. /x!us!s!(un)/
'hut, booth of reeds, tavern'. As we can see it is known from both
Akk. and Ar. There was no need to demonstrate Ar. word. Although
Pokorny (1927-30), p. 953 under 2. (s)keu-, (s)keu�: (s)ku: does not
have a satisfactory etymology of this word and on p. 534, s.v. ca:s-
, c_�s- has equally unclear etymon for Lat casa. There is no need to
look for a Smc. etymon, the word attested in almost all Gmc. and IE
languages. Moreover, there is no reasons to unite Haus and casa as
derivatives of the same primary root even one seems very similar,
the same can be said about Gk. /oikos/ 'house'. OG forms exhibit a
variety forms such as Nrw. Hu:se, OHG hu:s, Sw. Hydda, which suggest
affinity with Gr. H�tte and Eng. hut. Cf. Rs. and Ukr. /khata/ which
provides an excellent example for a good illustration of the real
connection of 'hut' and 'house'.

As for L. casa, contrary to Tronsky 2001:110 who considered this a
loan word in L., we can suggest the L. etymon capsa 'receptacle,
repository, chest, box, container' [from Lat verb capio:, cepi,
captum, cap#ere 'take, catch'] [root cap- + nominal suffix -s-+
nominal suffix of n.f. -a: (capsa > cassa > casa, i.e. regressive
assimilation of /p/ preceding /s/ ). The metaphoric extension of the
meaning from 'box' to 'hut' and further to 'house' is not too hard
to imagine.
"

There are similarly good candidates in Uralic. Why does that mean
Semitic candidates should be eliminated?


"12. +farh- WG 'Pig' (V.'s p. 664-65) V. notes that raising pigs was
brought to the Northern Europe by the megalithic Semitides
(Vennemann 1997b: chap. 11, sect. 3). A number of Ger words the
author assumes to be of Semitidic origin, but he doesn't give any
Semitidic evidence. (pp. 662-669). V. never brings the Sem. etymon,
but he probably has in mind Hb. /h!#az�r/ or Ar. /x!inz�r /.
Curiously enough, without any evidence V. attributes also the IE
word for wild pig Ever/Eber to Sem etymon (Ar. /�ifr/ 'Eber, Ferkel'
Akk. /app�rru/ 'Wildschwein' (V.'s pp.252, 560, 614). Since Ar.
example is from much later period and it is most similar
acoustically to WG word, V. had to find more ancient example
exhibiting sound /f/ in this word, i.e. he had to chose rather
examples from SA or from African Semitic languages (if this word is
attested in them): the reflex of Proto-Semitic */p/ in them is /f/.

It is known that boar hunting and pig domestication in Northern
Europe is known from the Neolithic period (see e.g. in Encyclop�dia
Britannica, 1971, v. 17, p. 1068, s.v. Pig). Atlantic people who
arrived to Europe, according to V. in the post-Neolithic period,
definitely didn't introduce this breed to Europe. If they didn't
bring these animals to Europe, there was no need to name pigs and
boars by Atlantic settlers.
"


According to recent genetic research (Science, Mar 15) pigs of
Europe and Turkey/Iran belong to two different branches of Sus
scrofa, who spread into the world from island SEAsia since the last
ice age, leaving three related pig species behind. There's good
reason to suspect this spread was people-mediated, cf Proto-
Austronesian *beRek "pig"; thus the pig was brought separately and
independently by the same people to the Middle East and Europe.



"None of the roots or suffixes listed by V. for Old European
looks like anything in Bq., save for the root *Is- (according to V.,
identical with Bq. root *'iz- 'water', and Michilena in several
places dismisses this putative root as a phantasm."

One of the main arguments for Basque *iz- "water"
is 'izurde' "porpoise", cf. Bq. 'urde' "pig", and
German 'Meerschwein', Da. 'marsvin', Lat. 'porcus marinaris',
Fr. 'porc marin'. Trask argues that 'iz-' in this case may be short
for 'gizon' "man" and cites a dialect form 'gizurde'. This would
mean that the Basques had deviated from the German, Da., Lat., and
Fr. example by calling the porpoise a "man-pig" ??? I don't think so.

"
As far as one can understand V. matches mostly Gr., Eng., and L.
words with the AA words, which he finds in M�ller (1911), Levin
(1995) and V. Orel and O. Stolbova [further Orel (1995)]. It was
shown recently by I. M. Diakonov and L. E. Kogan, that the work Orel
(1995) is insufficient and misleading in many entries. Since V.
accepted the results of this publication uncritically, he inherited
mistakes of this dictionary in his AA etymologies of the IE
vocabulary.
"

The entries in Orel & Stol'bova's book comprise a reconstruction of
a root plus the various documented forms of that proposed root. They
have been criticised for their reconstructions, not for the rest of
the entries (obviously). Vennemann nevers uses one of O&S's
reconstructions alone, he always quotes the entire entry.


"In short we consider the book a complete failure."

We (me and my tapeworm) consider this review to be incompetent and
snotty.


> Imagine the excitement of an "Old Europeanist" who finds a brook
> called <Aps> in
> what is now Poland and used to be part of Germany. What we surely
> have here is *Ap-s-, a well-known "Old European root" (*ap-/*ab-
> 'water, river') with a common "hydronymic suffix" (*-s-). Then,
> alas, somebody else finds out that back in the 19th c. the brook
> was locally known as Abtsbach 'abbot's brook', and that there are
> also toponyms like 'abbot's mill' nearby -- and there goes the Old
> European etymology. Even famous linguists are prone to such
> mistakes if they take short cuts in their research.

Was there an abbey nearby?



Torsten