> --- In email@example.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@> wrote:
> > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In email@example.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@>
> > > >wrote:
> > > > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@>
> > > > >this.
> > > > > Pokorny: '
> > > > > pe:(i)-, pi:- "weh tun, beschädigen, schmähen";
> > > > > ai. pa:pá- = arm. hivand- "krank" (Ernst Lewy).
> > > > > WP. II 8 f., WH. II 234 f., 264, 283.'
> > > >
> > > > Everything but the kitchen sink. Sometimes Pokorny does
> > > > Another example is his *pel-(1).Latin
> > > >
> > > > > How about *pe:-ik- "something that hurts", later
> > > > > 'de-sabellized' (cf. Osc scriftas, Umbrian screhto, but
> > > > > script-), pe:ik- > pekk-, thus Latin pecca: (old n.pl.)?with 'secondary
> > > > Nor does "de-sabellization" work in your example, since no
> > > > P-Italic language makes -ik- from -kk-. Umbrian <pesetom> is
> > > > generally held to be written for *<peççetom>, as mentioned
> > > > earlier. Oscan retains -kk-; see e.g. <akkatus> nom. pl.
> > > > 'advocates', <Dekkieis> gen. sg. 'of Decius'. Thus, even if
> > > > "de-sabellization" were a valid way of producing Latin forms,
> > > > it could not yield *pecca from an earlier *peika: (and no
> > > > Italic language retains inherited long diphthongs as such).
> > >
> > > I hadn't read Buck's §143 closely enough; it seems the rules in
> > > Umbrian are *-kt- > -ht-, but *-kVt- > -it-, eg *re:kte: >
> > > *re:hte:, but *weghe-to:d > -veitu. But he also, confusingly to
> > > me, wants to posit an intermediate stage *wekto:d
> > > -kt-'. Since the internal rules of Umbrian were probably asThey (speakers of Umbrian) would not. Buck's point is that an
> > > opaque to the average Roman as they are to me, I don't think
> > > 'de-Sabellizing' -it- as -kt-, and by generalization, -Vik- as
> > > -Vkk- is out of the question.
> > Buck's intermediate stage is necessary to explain the vocalism of
> > <ar^veitu> and <kuveitu>. Without it, one would expect
> > *-weheto:d > *-we:tu, with a long monophthong instead of a
> > diphthong.
> But how would they distinguish 'primary' from 'secondary' -kt-?
> > My objections are, first, most average Romans knew little or nono
> > Umbrian anyway, would be unlikely to know that <feitu> (for
> > example) corresponded systematically to <facito>, and would have
> > reason to "de-sabellize" a word anyhow.to
> Latin dictionaries are full of explanations of this or that word as
> Oscan or Umbrian loans into Latin; I think it must have been closer
> home, some low sociolect in Rome with Sabellian features. We knowwrites
> there was such a sociolect, the shibboleth -au-/-o- (Petronius
> 'copo' for 'caupo'). If so, it would for the average Roman havebeen a
> question of register, and they are easily muddled.Yes. What I call the "Sabino-Latin dialect" (as opposed to the
> > Second, even if they did regularly practice "de-sabellization",with /akk/.
> > they would be unlikely to generalize from "/Vit/ really means
> > /Vkt/" to "/Vik/ really means /Vkk/". In Latin itself, apices on
> > inscriptions show that /akt/ became /a:kt/ (which is Somebody's
> > Law, I forget whose), but no such lengthening occurred
>If it was <pe:cca:re>, the length of /e:/ should show up in Celtic
> That might be Lachmann's law, root vowels are lengthened in the ppp
> stem if the root ends in a voiced stop. No lengthening occurred in
> other roots. If it is, we should expect lengthening -kk- if that is
> from -d-k- (*ped-ka:), not otherwise.
> > The cluster /kt/ and the geminate /kk/ had different effects onI probably should have kept my mouth shut just then.
> > their surroundings.
> Unless you were talking about Lachmann's law.
> > And finally, if any Romans knew Umbrian well enough tobecome /çç/
> > "de-sabellize" its words, they would know that /kk/ had
> > in Umbrian, in the very word under discussion.that
> If pecca: is the result of hypercorrecting from a Sabellian-like
> sociolect in Latin, that particular rule might not be present in
> sociolect. Of course that is almost too convenient.betr_gen.html
> > > > > It would correspond to Norw. (un-Grimm) peik "böser Streich"
> > > >between
> > > > Distinct roots *peik- and *peig-, in Gmc. *fi:h-/*fi:g- and
> > > > *fi:k-, appear to have been confounded due to synonymy
> > > > 'wicked, hurtful, treacherous' and 'marked, branded'.of
> > >
> > > Kuhn's usual explanation is that some words were only partially
> > > affected by Grimm, eg the anlaut stop would be affected, the
> > > auslaut one not.
> > That seems unnecessary. One of the difficulties of NWB theory as
> > presented in "Anlautend P-" is that three of the NWB roots have
> > interdentals, /þ/ or /ð/. I do not believe that NWB had these
> > sounds, but that the Gmc. words involved (including 'path') are
> > derived from pre-Grimm Gaulish loanwords.
> That would be from Gaulish *b-, from PIE *bh-, or PIE *gW-, *gWh-.
> Apart from Kuhn's own suggestion of PIE *gWem-ti- > Gaulish
> *ba-ti- > PGerm *pa-þi-, I can't think of any derivation from PIE
> along the path you suggest of the NWB roots Kuhn presents, several
> which have sound Latin and Greek cognates as they stand. MeidI regard 'path' as borrowed from Gaulish *bato- 'beaten' (possibly in
> supplements with Gaelic lar, NWB Plore (in placenames), German Flur,
> English floor.
> > (I am aware that the Much-Kluge derivation of 'path' fromScythian
> > remains popular after a century, and a posting arguing forGaulish
> > instead is in preparation.)At some point I would like to undertake a thorough review of all the
> I look forward to it. Perhaps also for Kuhn remaining roots in
> p- ? ;-)
> > > > Kuhn's *peik- is a good NWB example, in my opinion.interfluve
> > >
> > > I want you consider what you are saying here, since it is pretty
> > > momentous. If one admits of non-Grimm-shifted forms in Germanic
> > > outside of the NWB area between Weser-Aller and Somme-Oise (and
> > > possibly in OE and descendants, since ex-NWB-speakers might have
> > > participated in the Saxon invasion), that is, in Lower Saxony,
> > > Schleswig-Holstein and Scandinavia, there can be only two
> > > explanations:
> > > 1) People from the NWB area emigrated to there, or
> > > 2) Germanic is intrusive in those areas, people used to speak
> > > non-Grimm-shifted (but closely related) languages.
> > > Now that is basically the content of my dispute with George.
> > > Kuhn never mentions this as a problem, for some reason, he just
> > > seems to ignore it.
> > I regard (2) as partially correct. I take the Elbe-Oder
> > plus southern Scandinavia as the Germanic homeland, and the placeThey are now. By "Scandinavia" I did not mean to include Denmark; I
> > where the Grimm shift actually occurred.
> Southern Scandinavia is out of the question.
> This is for Jysk, but as you can assure yourself by any dictionary,
> standard Danish and Swedish are full of words in p-.
> > Lower Saxony is outside the interfluve, Schleswig-Holsteininside.
> > NWB-speakers appear to have had no presence in Scandinavia, sinceindogermanischen
> > Old Norse has hardly any native words with initial /p/.
> This is Kuhn's objection to that argument, from 'Anlautend p-':
> 'Heimat in einer niederen Schicht, darin stimmen die
> Wörter mit anlautendem b- und die meisten unserer Stämme mit p- imden
> Anlaut überein. Davon ausgenommen sind bei uns fast einzig solche
> Wörter, die mit sachlichen Neuerungen und dem Handel gekommen sein
> können, lateinische wie andere. Ihre Sonderstellung tritt schon in
> alten Quellen klar an den Tag. Die Lieder der Edda im Norden, derSammlungen
> Beowulf in England, der altsächsische Heliand und Otfrids Werk im
> Süden, diese vier ältesten großen dichterischen Werke oder
> in vier Teilen Germaniens zusammen enthalten von den erörterten*paid-
> Wortstämmen (ohne die lateinischen) nicht mehr als fünf, davon vier
> typische Kultur- oder Wanderwörter: *paþ-Pfad" (Beow. Otfr.),
> Rock" (Beow. Hel.), *pan(n)ing- Pfennig" (Edda Otfr.) und *plo:g-),
> Pflug" (Edda Otfr.). Der fünfte Stamm ist *pleg-(pflegen), dessen
> Bedeutungskreis auffallend weit und dessen Herkunft und älteste
> Verwendung unklar sind. Andere alte Kulturwörter haben wir zum
> Beispiel in Pfand, Pfarre, Pflicht (als Schiffsteil) und Pfriem. Die
> leicht aus dem Indogermanischen herleitbaren Stämme sind unter ihnen
> sehr in der Minderheit.'
> ie. that OE, OS and OHG are equally lacking in words in p- (OHG pf-
> which could be explained by assuming that what is recorded first hasYes. That is a very good point. The earliest surviving literature
> the least of the words of the language of the unwashed (NWB et al.)
> > Norwegian could have picked up a few NWB words later on, perhapsis
> > from Middle Dutch.
> A large part of the vocabulary of the three Scandinavian languages
> assumed to be Low German, which played the same role here as OF inthe
> England. The usual procedure is to assume that if a word exists in
> three Scand. l. and in Low German, but not in ON, it is a loan fromexist
> Low German, but that is of course no proof that the word didn't
> in a low register here before the time of the dominance of the HanseIn the early second, or possibly very late third, millennium BCE.
> (Low German was the language of the Hanse, the records of the Hanse
> meetings, now in Mal/bork, German Marienburg, are partly in Latin,
> partly in Low German)
> > Krahe recognized the absence of Alteuropäisch river-names in the
> > Elbe-Oder interfluve as a problem for his theory. It is not a
> > problem for my version of the theory, since I take the bulk of AE
> > river-names (exclusive of those like Regana/Regina which do not
> > belong there) as Indo-Iranian and intrusive in the West.
> When do you think Indo-Iranians intruded there?
> I think they're Venetic. That would explain why almost all rivernames
> in Europe are in one language: they were the ones who used them.Venetic did not merge inherited */e/ and */o/ with */a/. Indo-
> Check the maps in the folderassuming
> Placenames untouched by Grimm, maps 08-12, 16
> in the folder
> Maps from Udolph
> in the files section.
> Be aware that Udolph, in order to save Germania as the home of the
> Grimm-shift posits an pre_Grimm un-Grimm rule p > b, t > d, k > g,
> which took place on a select few Germanic words, among them,
> conveniently enough all the river names in Germania, before Grimm's
> b > p, d > t, g > k set in, which all resulted in the present
> situation, which scandalously can be much better explained by
> that there was no Grimm-shift on the territory of the laterGermania.
> > In my view the Proto-Germans were successful in keeping theout
> > AE-speakers out of the interfluve,
> That would make sense if AE was Venetic and the Veneti lived
> (survived) in the De,bczyn culture.
> > and the Proto-NWBers were nearly as successful in keeping them
> > of the lower Rhine basin, where only some smaller rivers have AEMy point is that the assimilation did not take place in the Hercynian
> > names.
> > Celtic expansion later shrank the NWB area down to the Weser-
> > Aller/Somme-Oise borders, but as I mentioned Hercynia cannot be
> > regarded as an original Celtic name,
> We can't be sure the assimilation *p-kW- > *kW-kW- took place in the
> para-Celtic spoken in the Hercynian forest.
> > and Kuhn argued (I forget where)Hercynia was taken over by Celts while they still had original /p/,
> Grenzen vor- und frühgeschichtlicher Ortsnamentypen
> > that the tribal name Parisii contains *par(a)- which appears in
> > Celtic names as Ar(e)-, so it is likely an NWB name.
> But this is preserved p-, and 'Hercynia' has *p- > h-
> > > > > No more need to put a foot in it (although *pe:(i) etc mightfirst
> > > > > ultimately be from *ped- "lower(?)" v.).
> > > >
> > > > We need less lumping, not more. Or at any rate we should
> > > > do as much splitting as possible, then look for lumpingweakened
> > > > opportunities.
> > >
> > > That's a timing issue. Or: Been there, done that. Ultimately, I
> > > think the *ped- root is a loan, cf. the extreme lumpiness in
> > > http://www.angelfire.com/rant/tgpedersen/pd.html
> > That list needs to be whittled down. Roots like *bhedh- are not
> > equivalent to *ped-. Zero-grade is found in Latin <agrippa>
> > 'person born feet-first', which Schulze explained as *agri-pd-a:
> > 'first with the foot'. Incidentally, Nicholson explained West
> > Romance *petitto- 'small' (e.g. French <petit>) on the basis of
> > Latin <pede tectus> 'covered by the foot' (i.e. 'minute',
> > to 'small' by semantic devaluation).to
> Ingenious, but not convincing.
> Here's a quote from Burrows: The Sanskrit language
> 'Ancient thematic neuters in IE are very rare. Skt. yugám is shown
> be ancient by the correspondence of Gk. zugón, Lat. iugum, etc.with
> Another ancient word is Skt. padám 'step', Gk. pédon, Hitt. pedan,
> which may be presumed to have originated in the same way, though
> direct evidence is lacking in this case. Gk. érgon 'work' with the
> same rare and no doubt ancient apophony as pédon is to be classed
> it. It should be noted that such primitive thematic neuters, whichSo the words *yugom and *pedom are not reconstructible to the
> according to this theory are transformed m-stems, are not only
> exceedingly rare, but they are the only class which provide certain
> word equations between different IE languages. Thus the thematic
> neuters of secondary origin, namely (1) extensions of neuter
> consonantal stems and (2) the still later though numerous taddhita
> formations, are of later origin. It would be difficult otherwise to
> explain the absence of detailed agreement among these formations
> between the various languages. In this connection also we must note
> the complete absence of the latter two formations in Hittite.'
> It seems pretty fantastic, I know, but I think both *pad- and *yug-be
> are well travelled Wanderwörter. Under those circumstances it would
> wrong to force either word into a PIE Procrustean bed.Well, what are we left with if we kick out all roots showing any
> And BTW, I just fell overIf there are pre-Celtic NWB/Venetic words in Breton, you could get a
> Vannetais Breton paoter "little boy", Dutch peuter "small child"