Re: Volcae and Volsci

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <miguelc@...>
wrote:

>
> On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 11:18:24 -0000, "tgpedersen"
> <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> >--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <miguelc@>
> >wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 02:57:16 -0000, "tgpedersen"
> >> <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> The fact that the law (Kluge's, I mean) worked in exactly
> >> >> the same way in Germanic (also in pretonic position only)
> >> >> makes it all the more plausible that the same conditioning
> >> >> applied in Celtic. In fact, I find it very hard to avoid
> >> >> thinking that it is the _same_ law in both Germanic and
> >> >> Celtic.
> >> >
> >> >Hm. What does that mean? That it applied alike in two separate
> >> >language branches, that it applied in a common Celtic-Germanic
> >> >prestage (I'm not aware there is one), or that it applied in
> >> >some language which became substratal to both Celtic and
> >> >Germanic?
> >>
> >> That it, like, say, the satem shift, applied across several
> >> neighbouring, but already differentiated, Indo-European
> >> dialects.
> >>
> >
> >Which means you end up with the linguistic equivalent of the EPR
> >paradox.
>
> I can't imagine why. There is no paradox, and the whole
> thing (which boils down to 'Wellentheorie') is _based_ on
> the principle of locality.

A kind of satem infection, I gather.

> Sounds shifts can and have spread across dialects, and even
> across completely different languages (the cause célèbre
> being the spread of uvular [R] across large parts of
> Europe).

But that's a physiological thing, I'm pretty sure (you don't have to
concur). Even in solidly apical territory you find a find a few
individuals who substitute uvular [R] for apical [r] because thy are
incapable of pronouncing it ('rive på r'et', they used to call it in
Jutland), the opposite is never the case. No one substitutes [k] with
[c^] because he can't pronounce it.

> >That's exactly why I don't like the idea of the satem shift,
> >but prefer to see PIE stops as phonemes with context-dependent
> >allophones, the palatals were *c^e/ko/xt, the labiovelars
> >*ke/kWo/ft(xt) and the plains *ke/ko/kt, since they occurred in
> >imported words.
>
> The facts are that we do have *ke/*ko, *k^e/*k^o and
> *kWe/*kWo,

If those are facts, why do you precede them with an asterisk?

> and that the *k/*g/*gh series occurs abundantly
> in native words and suffixes.

The diminutive suffix -ie occurs abundantly in modern German. That
doesn't make it native.

> >And you'd probably have to bring in extra-linguistic
> >factors such as the presence of a substrate anyway, to explain why
> >exactly those languages participated and the rest didn't.
>
> Whatever for? All you need is geography.

Was that from the Volcae to the Przeworsk Germani? Could you be more
specific as to geography?

> Kluge's law was a shared isogloss that spread over the Celtic and
> Germanic areas.

*-Cn- > *-CC- spread to several languages? Any other language groups
involved? For some odd reason it reappears in Finnish/Saami loans.

> You can add your Nordwestblock, if you like.

No?! Substrates in IE? I must get a chair with higher hand rests. What
will happen to your PIE Sunday crossword if you begin to allow substrates?


Torsten