---- Original Message ----
From: Piotr Gasiorowski
To:
cybalist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2006 10:26 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] "Fish" in Slavic
> On 2006-07-22 19:38, Grzegorz Jagodzinski wrote:
>> - Russian rys', Serbian/Croat ri"s, Slovene ri^s show no traces of
>> *n,
>> - Lith. lú:s^is, Latv. lu~sis, OPruss. luysis (uncertain) show no
>> traces of *n, even if there are dialects that have it,
> _No_ traces of *n _even_ if there are dialects that show it?
> This is self-contradictory.
Come on, give up with this. I have written correctly. In the clause
"Lith. lú:s^is, Latv. lu~sis, OPruss. luysis (uncertain) show no
traces of *n" the subject is "Lith. lú:s^is, Latv. lu~sis, OPruss.
luysis (uncertain)". Can you see ANY traces of *n in these three recordings
which are in the subject of my sentence?
> It's precisely those dialectal (Samogitian) forms
> that are relevant, so you can't simply sweep them
> under the carpet!
Not so fast... As I said, none of the three forms: Prussian (which is
uncertain and probably not present in real texts), Latvian and
standard Lithuanian can be the evidence for *n. Which is more, the
Lithuanian form is evidence for no *n. But if *n had been present in
Proto-Lithuanian, we should have expected **lú,s^is rather than
lú:s^is. You can't simply sweep it under the carpet! But the
difference was not purely orthographic not so long ago.
>> - OHG luhs (now Luchs), Old Swedish ló < *luxsu-, *luxa- (x like in
>> IPA) show no traces of *n,
> In all lineages of Germanic *n was lost very early before a velar
> fricative, leaving a lengthened vowel.
This is a well-known thing. If the Gmc word had long -u:-, I would
say that it would allow us think about the possibility of *lunk-. But
as no Gmc forms have long -u:-, I simply say that the evidence from
Germanic contradicts your reconstruction.
> It's true that the attested
> reflexes of the 'lynx' word point to a short vowel and therefore no
> nasal, but note that in Balto-Slavic, au contraire, the vowel is
> _long_ and there's some evidence of original nasalisation.
And why should we base ourselves on Samogitian and sweep the Lituanian and
especially the Germanic evidence under the carpet? (especially, because the
Lithuanian problem may be indeed due to unetymological spelling) On
Germanic, see also below.
>> - MIrish lug also is not any evidence for *n,
> The Celtic form is so aberrant that it's either unrelated or
> contaminated with some other etyma.
Or we have just another example of irregular development, without any
contaminations and with full genetic relation. Anyway, it does not
show any traces of *n.
> In effect, it hardly counts as useful evidence for anything.
Do you think the same about the Germanic evidence?
> Let's imagine, for the sake of the argument, that the 'lynx' word was
> originally something like *luk^-é:n, gen. luk^-n-ós > *lunk^-ós, hence the
> analogical nom.sg. *lunk^-s. If the same root could occur with other
> suffixes, we can both account for the n-less forms with short *u and make
> sense of the combined testimony of Greek, Balto-Slavic and Armenian.
Or, the same root could occur without any other suffixes (cf. Old Swedish
ló). It is in a not-so-good concordance with your agent noun hypothesis.
>> - Armenian lusanunk' has two -n-'s but none on the right place; in
>> fact lus- < *luk^-, not *lunk^-
> Still, it's a nasal stem, and metathesis in oblique allomorphs of
> nasal stems occasionally produces what looks like an infix.
And according to your deduction, Greek and Samogitian (and Slavic, as
you assume) had metathesis, Celtic and Germanic had not any *n, and
only Armenian preserved the root without metathesis. Interesting,
especially for an advocate of unexceptional sound rules. And in
lusunank', lus- stay for *luk^-, -un- stay for *-n- or even -nH-, and
what does the second -n- stay for?
Because of the two n's, I would say that the Armenian word is so
aberrant that it can hardly count for any evidence.
>> Even leaving the variation k/g in Greek (secondary and
>> unetymological), why should we believe that -n- in Greek and
>> (partially) Baltic is not secondary?
> What could motivate such a secondary *n _ex nihilo_ independently
> in two branches?
There is nothing strange in such a secondary *n ex nihilo without any
motivation. Polish has several examples of unetymological nasals
(like in "szcze,ka" 'jaw' or "mie,dzy" 'between', together with
"miedza" 'boundary strip between fields'). If one language has a
chance to develop an unetymological and unmotivated nasality, there
is also a chance for such parallel development in two languages (even
if it is less of course).
> I think the length
> in PBSl. *lu:nc'i- reflects a special treatment of inherited *iR/*uR
> (contrasting with BSl. reflexes of syllabic liquids and nasals).
> Piotr
Interesting, especially if you found more examples. But does it
explain the BSl intonation?
(Serbian/Croat ri"s, gen. ri"sa, Slovene ri^s, gen. ri^sa, Lith.
lú:s^is, Latv. lu~sis)
And the next question. Let's take (in Balto-Slavic):
1) examples for *iR/*uR < *R.
2) examples for *íR/*úR < inherited *iR/*uR, if really any are present
3) examples for *íR/*úR < *RH
Does it mean that 2) and 3) merged completely? Or, there is a way to
separate one form another?
And btw. Are there any theories on Latin (medieval?) uncia? (not present in
my dictionaries) A borrowing from Greek? When? With y > u, so rather old. Or
maybe an inherited word? Anyway, it is the scientific name of snow leopard.
And *l- disappeared here completely. Why? It is not a serious problem for
me, but for an advocate of unexceptional rules it must serious indeed.
Grzegorz J.
___________________________________________________________
Try the all-new Yahoo! Mail. "The New Version is radically easier to use" The Wall Street Journal
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html