From: caotope
Message: 64544
Date: 2009-08-01
> > > > > How about my favorite phoneme: /n,W/, the nasal labio-velar?So that's /Nk_w/ then, not /N_w/?
> > > >
> > > > Well if we want to derive them all from a single form. But
> > > > that doesn't seem to be necessary. This case rather looks
> > > > like related substrate languages having related, but
> > > > distinct, invertebrate terminology.
> > >
> > > Ends up as the same thing: if we want to know the structure of
> > > that language family, we will have to posit proto-forms,. And
> > > labial/velar stop/nasal alternation is one of the
> > > characteristics of the language of geminates as defined already,
> >
> > With stops, maybe. Nasals simply seem to assimilate to them.
>
> That should be read as 'labial / velar alternation combined with
> stop / pre-nasalized stop alternation'.
> > So what exactly did you want to do with a labiovelar nasal again?I'm talking about these invertebrate words specifically. What do you think is their "family tree"?
> > This thing needs an outline.
>
> Posit it for the substrate language and derive labial or velar auslaut stops of semantically related words in NWEuropean languages, geminate or nort, prenasalized or not.
> > > eg. dup-/dump-/dunk-/duck-.AHD relates this to MHG _dunken_ via Pennsylvania Dutch (as it's originally attested in America), ultimately from PIE *teng-.
> >
> > English "dunk" is supposedly a German loan,
>
> I've never heard that. ON dunka, perhaps k- derivative of ON duna "crash", say Dansk Etymologisk Ordbog, Da. dunke, Sw. dunka. The German relative of the above series is 'tünchen' "whitewash".
> cf. "thunk" -Supposedly onomatopoetic, plausibly cognate. ;)
>
> ??
> > and I'm not sure what you are getting at with "dup-".That racks up the alternation count a lot actually. How do we figure they're ALL original alternation and not later reshaping? No. _duppe_ works from *-mp- as well. There may also be secondary influence from the _deep_ root here and there.
>
> You will be, after you read Schrijver's article:
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/62677
> Search 'dup'.
> The idea that the labial and the velar series sometimes reflect a single, not two substrate phonemes, BTW is not Schrijver's but introduced later by Meid (IIRC) and earlier, but unnoticed by Kuhn.I sense a methodological issue here. We are supposed to accept an a/u alternation, and at the same time, reduce all consonant alternations to parallel development? Even when parallel forms end up in the same language?
>
> Torsten