Re: [tied] Germanic geminates

From: tgpedersen
Message: 43759
Date: 2006-03-10

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
wrote:
>
> On 2006-03-09 14:05, tgpedersen wrote:
>
> > Kuhn ascribes those Germanic words with geminates (especially
those
> > where geminate alternates with single consonant) to the
> > Nordwestblock substrate. He also questions Kluge's law. Note
that
> > many of them have no good cognates outside of Germanic.
>
> But Kluge's Law is based rather safely on examples that clearly
belong
> to inherited vocabulary and which make no sense without it.
Suffice it
> to mention such showcase items as *lig^H-náh2- > *likko:- 'lick'
or
> *doik^-nó- > *taikna- 'sign, token' (from *deik^- 'show). There is
no
> geminate in the latter case, since full nasal assimilation doesn't
> operate after long vowels and diphthongs, but the first stage of
Kluge's
> Law (interacting with GV and VL and changing their output) is well
> visible there. If one doesn't accept Kluge's Law, one is left to
> desperate ad hoc solutions like Pokorny's "alternative form" of
the
> *deik^- root, *doig^- (supported only by Germanic examples!);
that's
> really no acceptable alternative for an explanation that assumes
nothing
> but regular development.
>

None of the above disproves a solution where words with geminates
are loans from the *IE* Nordwestblock (Kuhn actually proposed two
layers of Nordwestblock: one pre-IE, one subsequent, short-lived IE).


Torsten