Re: Scientist's etymology vs. scientific etymology

From: tgpedersen
Message: 59399
Date: 2008-06-23

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...> wrote:
>
> At 4:35:07 AM on Friday, June 13, 2008, tgpedersen wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> > <BMScott@> wrote:
>
> >> At 5:16:49 PM on Thursday, June 12, 2008, tgpedersen
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> >>> <BMScott@> wrote:
>
> >>>> At 1:38:41 PM on Thursday, June 12, 2008, tgpedersen wrote:
>
> >>>>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> >>>>> <BMScott@> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> At 4:47:34 AM on Thursday, June 12, 2008, tgpedersen wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> As for couch grass, that must be related to a
> >>>>>>> different root eg. *gWih3w- "live" (cf. Da.
> >>>>>>> 'kvikgræs' "couch grass", or something else, is
> >>>>>>> 'couch' related?)
>
> >>>>>> This <couch> is. Couch grass is also quitch grass,
> >>>>>> and <quitch> directly continues OE <cwice>; <couch>
> >>>>>> seems originally to have represented /kutS/, so the
> >>>>>> development must have been something like /wi/ > /uj/
> >>>>>> > /u/. It's also quick grass, twitch (with the
> >>>>>> opposite development from that seen in German quer <
> >>>>>> OHG twerh), and in the U.S. quack grass.
>
> >>>>> I've seen that development recently in a bid to
> >>>>> explain river Dvina -> German Düna; supposedly LG has
> >>>>> swester -> süster too (Du. zuster, Sw. syster, Da.
> >>>>> søster), I thought myself of Dutch zoet /zu:t/, LG
> >>>>> soet /sö:t/, German süss, Sw söt, Da. sød "sweet". But
> >>>>> those distribution 1) don't match geographically with
> >>>>> each other, 2) or with any other known major.
>
> >>>> So? Stress shift in diphthongs is hardly an unusual
> >>>> occurrence.
>
> >>> I didn't claim that shift in diphthongs is an unusual
> >>> occurrence. Perhaps you should read the paragraph again.
>
> >> Perhaps you should explain yourself more clearly: I now
> >> have no idea what point you were trying to make with that
> >> paragraph.
>
> > That geographical boundaries of application of the /wi/ >
> > /u:/ or /ü:/ rule, which you classify and refer to as a
> > 'stress shift in diphthongs' do not correspond to the
> > geographical boundaries of any other phonological rule in
> > Germanic that I'm aware of. It divides (wrt. 'sister')
> > Germanic into English, Dutch, North Germanic (application
> > of the rule) vs. High German (non-application of the
> > rule),
>
> But it's OE <sweostor>, <swustor>, etc., whence ME <soster>,
> <suster>, etc.; <sister> is influenced by ON.

Are you sure you got that right?
My DEO says ... ON <systir>, Proto-Norse <swestar> ... OE <sweostor>,
<suster>, MEngl. Engl. <sister> is borrowed from Norse ...

So <sister> is influenced by Norse <systir>, and <suster> is not?
How do you explain that?

> As for NGmc.,
> there's an early runic <swestar>. The <y> of <systir> seems
> to be from the nom.pl. <systr>, from *<swistiR> (cf. ON
> <sykn> 'schuldlos, straffrei' and Goth. <swikns> 'rein,
> unschuldig, keusch').

> These losses of /w/ are independent local developments.

I didn't get that?


> > and (wrt. 'sweet') into Dutch, Low German, North
> > Germanic (application of the rule) vs. English, High
> > German (non-application of the rule),
>
> There is no /wi/ here: it's PGmc. *swo:tja-. MDu. has
> <soete, suete> from OSax. <swôti>.
>

I had doubts about the supposed rule anyway. It *is* loss of /w/.

> > and apparently the reflexes of the grass name has
> > instances in English both with ('couch') and without
> > ('quitch', 'quick').
>
> This <couch> is obviously a late local development.

I fail to see that.

> > Therefore I suspected that these words might not be
> > directly inherited, but loaned at some time.
>
> And didn't bother to do even the most elementary checking.

That's not elementary.
I don't have any resources on English dialects, so I ask.
I should learn to avoid asking you.


> >>>>> Further, if there were any truth to this supposed
> >>>>> Inguaeonic *k > ts,
>
> >>>> What on earth are you talking about? There is no *k > ts
> >>>> in quitch > twitch (or anywhere else in the quoted post).
>
> >>> I didn't claim that either. I think you might have
> >>> missed this paragraph:
>
> >>> 'Die Formen mit -k- und -ts-, -tsch-, -ss- gehören über
> >>> "ingwäonische" Sibilierung des -k- zusammen, trotz A.
> >>> Lasch, Palatales 'k' 278 A. 4, wonach sich nd. quitz
> >>> nicht sicher auf -k- zurückführen lasse.'
>
> >> Since you included none of that long quotation in your
> >> response to me, I assumed that you *were* responding to
> >> me, so of course I did not look back and wade through the
> >> quotation to see whether something there might possibly
> >> be relevant to your comment.
>
> > The natural response when you see a key word like
> > 'Inguaeonic' and it doesn't occur in the six lines above
> > it in the posting would be to go back and scan earlier
> > postings to try to locate it there.
>
> I assumed that you had snipped competently and were merely
> being a bit cryptic, as you often are.

You assumed the exact opposite.

> > I know I would have. I might possibly have overestimated
> > your proficiency in German ('wading through') so I'll
> > translate the relevant parts for you in the future.
>
> Don't put yourself out: I'd have used 'wading through' even
> if it had been in English.

I am sorry to hear you have same problem reading long passages in your
own language.
It's OK; many dyslectics are nice people.

> German slows me down only a
> little. (It's French that really slows me down: mine's very
> rusty, and for some reason I've never cared for the
> language.)


> > And BTW, writing with the implicit assumption that I'm an
> > idiot who makes references to something which doesn't
> > occur in earlier postings ('whether something there might
> > possibly be relevant') might harass me, but remember
> > there's an audience too, and using those barroom antics in
> > discussion hardly earns you points with them.
>
> You mistake my intent altogether: as I said above, I thought
> it much likelier that I was failing to understand a
> self-contained post than that you were referring to
> something that you'd snipped. In other words, I was
> assuming that you were *not* foolish, discourteous, or
> clumsy enough to have snipped something to which you wanted
> to refer.

Christ, are you nasty.


Torsten