Re: Nordwestblock, Germani, and Grimm's law

From: johnvertical@...
Message: 65763
Date: 2010-01-27

> > > 'Wing' has the most diverse explanation in DEO, de Vries
> > > and Skeat.
> >
> > Whatever the etymology of the word, you still haven't given
> > an example of 'side' > 'limb'.
>
> But the sense I derive it from is not just "side", but "a body (of people) on the side", and seeing society (= its army) in the image of a body with organs is pretty common, cf.
> Karin Friederich, The Other Prussia,
> p. 55
> 'One of the most widely read tracts of the seventeenth century, which stressed the exclusivity of noble-Sarmatian citizenship, was the anonymous 1671 eulogy of the Commonwealth, Domina Palatii - Regina Libertas. It described the king as the head, the senators as the teeth, the szlachta as the main body with the free vote at its heart, and the commoners as legs and feet, on which the body stands.'

No luck, that's STILL "limb" > "team" and similar metaphoric usages. What we would like to see is something along the lines of using "regiment" or "company" or "team" or "platoon" to mean "arm" or "leg" or "wing" or "hand".


> > (The sources readily available to me all derive it, if at all,
> > from *h2weh1- 'to blow'.)
>
> So does de Vries, I discover after looking first in the wrong place
> 'vængi n. 'kajute' (poet.), nschw. da. vinge 'flügel'.
> — Zu vængr m. 'flügel, fittich, ausbau am hause',
> (< urn. *wa:ingja),
> nisl. vængur, far. vongur,
> nnorw. veng 'flugel, kajute', dial. auch 'ausbau',
> — > me. weng, wing, ne wing (Bjorkman 225); >
> lpN. væn,n,ga 'kajute' (Qvigstad 353).
> — Zur idg. wzl *we: 'wehen', vgl. vindr I,'
> Skeat has
> 'Lit. "wagger" or flapper; nasalised form from the base WIG, as in
> Got. gawigan, to shake (pt.t. gawag). Allied to Wag'
>
> I'm not impressed by the "blow" etymology, and I suspect you aren't either. Obviously the "on the side" sense was there from the beginning in ON (cf. the "cabin" sense).

As was the "wing" sense, so this tells nothing about which was the original.


> > > The basic distinction in military disciple, as manifested
> > > in the command language of parades is between being
> > > directly subordinated to the will of a superior, and being
> > > "on your own time" (within limits, of course). The
> > > mode-changing commands are 'Attention' and 'At ease'. For
> > > an army, getting through the landscape in a single file is
> > > done on your own time, so to speak, like the legions of
> > > Varus did at Kalkriese. Calling that formation, or rather
> > > non-formation "an arrangement of soldiers" is therefore
> > > misleading. It is, if anything, a lack of arrangement.
> >
> > I think that you'll have a hard time persuading anyone who's
> > actually served.
>
> I did.

So did I. And being "on your own time" does not change the fact that a soldier is still part of the command chain, and that would appear to be the relevant structure here (soldier vs. civil). Not rigid geometrical formations.

Feel free to provide attestations to the contrary.


> > all that we actually know is
> > that the color term is from the feminine name. The example
> > itself is irrelevant: the color term in question is hardly
> > basic vocabulary, and a personal name is not an example of a
> > sophisticated cultural concept.
>
> I was trying to match John's example. Will 'purple'
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple
> meet your standards?

A purple pigment is very much a technological advancement. See also (l)azure, carmine, etc.

You're probably aware that "red" by contrast is one of the more basic color terms.


> > >> I don't see you even trying to explain there how a single
> > >> *L could yield all of *g *gl *dVl *d *l etc.
> >
> > > I assume you already know that the /L/ is meant to denote
> > > an unvoiced /l/.

Yes.

> > > That's a rather rare phoneme, and tends
> > > to get substituted with exactly those combination when
> > > words containing it are loaned.

How /gl/, /d/ etc. if it's voiceless?

Why several different substitution variants in one language?

How do you motivate the substitutions that don't preserve the laterality? Why does the simple /s/ not appear among them?

Is transferring laterality to the coda of the syllable actually attested in similar subsitutions?

Is there any independant reason to think pre-IE languages had lateral obstruents?

Can we estabilish reoccurence for any of these substitution patterns, preferrably in regular correspondence to one another?

John Vertical