From: tgpedersen
Message: 64546
Date: 2009-08-01
>No, it's /n,W/ in the donor ar-/ur-/ and geminate language. It manifests itself in the receiving IE and FU languages as
> > > > > > How about my favorite phoneme: /n,W/, the nasal
> > > > > > labio-velar?
> > > > >
> > > > > 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 that's /Nk_w/ then, not /N_w/?
> > > So what exactly did you want to do with a labiovelar nasalThat one is complicated. I haven't made my mind up on that one.
> > > again?
> > > 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 not, prenasalized or not.
>
> I'm talking about these invertebrate words specifically. What do
> you think is their "family tree"?
> > > > eg. dup-/dump-/dunk-/duck-.Pokorny
> > >
> > > 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".
>
> AHD relates this to MHG _dunken_ via Pennsylvania Dutch (as it's
> originally attested in America), ultimately from PIE *teng-.
> > cf. "thunk" -Reshaped by what? Why would you assign some of them to a substrate and leave some in PIE to influence them later?
> >
> > ??
>
> Supposedly onomatopoetic, plausibly cognate. ;)
>
> > > and I'm not sure what you are getting at with "dup-".
> >
> > You will be, after you read Schrijver's article:
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/62677
> > Search 'dup'.
>
> That racks up the alternation count a lot actually. How do we figure they're ALL original alternation and not later reshaping?
> No.No what?
> _duppe_ works from *-mp- as well.That's a halfway solution.
> There may also be secondary influence from the _deep_ root here andExcept that the 'deep' root would be part of the loaned complex, so there would be nothing for it to influence.
> there.
>I don't follow you. The a/u alternation is what we find in the receiving languages, the original vowel would have been something like /a,/, a nasal /a/ (Slavic /a,/ becomes Russian /u/). Note that it often appears before one of the /-mb-/-bb-/etc series and so would naturally be nasalized. Schrijver's language of bird names contains nasalized vowels.
> > 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?