From: Torsten
Message: 65817
Date: 2010-02-08
>I haven't included it since I think the semantic link is a bit tenuous ("object of the 'hunt', and fare, of the lower classes / sedentary people" > "filth").
> > > > > > t > s is a weird consonant alternation?
>
> > > > I assume one of the transmission languages was the language
> > > > of geminates (which I assume is the same as the ar-/ur-
> > > > language), and that type of alternation is included the
> > > > defining alternations for that language.
>
> > > Also I recall the phonetically unconvincing *kunt vs. Uralic
> > > *kun´s´i "urine" vs. Baltic *ku:Si "pubic hair" (which doesn't
> > > even involve a plain *s at any point) as one "example" of this
> > > change.
> >
> > That was Schrijver; I haven't included it.
> > > Was there ever any more?The -ss-/-tt- alternation is from Kuhn's ar-/ur- language (see above)
> >
> > I hope this refreshes your memory
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/62677
>
> I did look thru that one before posting (and now again), and I
> still see no other examples of t/s alternation.
> > > > You obviously have a beef with Pokorny and Prellwitz. PleaseNon sequitur.
> > > > keep me out of it.
> > >
> > > Can't do, if your approach is to appeal to "the same privilege
> > > of exemption they enjoy".
> > > And it seems that I would not grant theWhatever.
> > > words YOU were referring to any "privilege of exemption".
> >
> > So if I choose a Wanderwort, you get to decide if it is?
>
> What we call them is not the point (your link to the WP article on
> "tea", "coffee" etc. just sent me off your intended meaning). But I
> do get to decide if I'm granting them any "privilege of exemption".
> > > > > > You misunderstand. I was pointing out that such wordsLeave out the the civilian/military distinction, which is your own addition, not mine, thus:
> > > > > > would be irrelevant to the new concept of placing the
> > > > > > responsibility for providing a certain number of cavalry
> > > > > > on a particular group or area.
>
> > > > > Yes, that sounds fine too. But it does not seem that this
> > > > > actual specific meaning ever surfaces in the words you have
> > > > > in there.
> > > >
> > > > What specific meaning and in where? Please be more specific.
> > >
> > > "Group of civilians tasked with providing a certain number of
> > > cavalry" for *LuN-.
> >
> > Wrong, *kaN-t-.
>
> Okay. Anyway, to repeat, this does not seem to be an attested
> meaning.
> > And there was no professional military.So don't add that assumption to my proposal.
>
> Yeah, so what?
> > The society was the army was the society, as in to a certainNo. I never said 'military' and 'civilian'. In my proposal the basic division in society originated with different ethne of which one imposed itself on the other, offering 'protection'. Apparently you disliked that aspect so much that you had to redefine it and attribute that new definition to me. The *kaN-t- vs. *LuN- definition was one of modes of command, plus the latter refers also to the totality of society, including non-combattants.
> > extent until recently in Turkey and some Latin American countries.
>
> You're the one who's been arguing for the existence of a basic
> semantic distinction between military (organized, *kaNt) and
> civilians (unorganized, *LuN).
> > > > > > > > Note that it is involved in the "long" sense.Erh, okay.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I have no idea what you mean by that.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Pokorny here
> > > > > > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/65525
> > > > >
> > > > > A root meaning "long", so?
> > > >
> > > > A root in *dl-, which is very rare combination in PIE.
>
> > > Therefore it is tempting to consider that they have the same
> > > source (as in some substrate), but it does not follow they
> > > should have any further connection: since we are alreddy
> > > assuming this was a perfectly normal sound in our substrate,
> > > there is noproblem in having more than one root that has it.
> >
> > True. You may assume that if you want, I'll test the possibility
> > they are related.
>
> No bad in testing. But you too are assuming it was a normal
> phoneme/cluster/etc. occurring in the substrate.
> > > > > Basic vocabulary does not tend to come from sophisticatedYes, it was. Sorry for the misleading reference.
> > > > > cultural concepts.
> > > >
> > > > That is generally assumed, and I think that's wrong.
> > > > Vocabularies abound with words having suffered a sociological
> > > > deroute.
> > >
> > > Vocabularies in general, yes. Swadesh-list-level basic
> > > vocabulary, no.
> >
> > Yes; see above.
>
> Is this in reference to your previous message?
> I see nothing of the sort there."eye" and "hand" are not 'Swadesh-list-level basic vocabulary'?
> > > > > I don't see you even trying to explain there how a single *LOf course they are assumptions. I assume the sun will rise tomorrow, and likely my assumption will turn out to be justified. But you never know.
> > > > > could yield all of *g *gl *dVl *d *l etc.
> > > > > That has to rake up some half a dozen assumptions at least.
> > > >
> > > > No assumptions, those are all documented IRL.
> > >
> > > All those substitutions are attested elsewhere, you mean? The
> > > assumptions are that this or that particular substitution
> > > happened.
> > > "Possible sound change" is still different from "sound change
> > > for which there is evidence".
> >
> > That's right, there is evidence for them elsewhere.
>
> We need corroborating evidence for the substitutions *in these
> specific languages*, or they remain assumptions.
> "Evidence elsewhere", ie. English substitutions of Welsh _ll_, isIs too.
> not relevant for that.
> > > > > > > > So it has to do with ordered vs. unordered (singleAssumptions are proposals are assumptions. What is your point?
> > > > > > > > file) march through the landscape.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > More assumptions.
> > > >
> > > > No, this is part of the proposal.
> > >
> > > Same thing. All these assumptions are part of your proposal.
> >
> > The proposal was that *Lun,- and *kam-t- were borrowed together
> > as antonyms.
>
> And you require a number of assumptions to argue for that proposal.
> It doesn't matter for their status as assumptions which of them youOf course if I choose to discard an assumption it changes its status since I won't assume it anymore. What is your point?
> want to hold on to and which you are willing to discard if
> something else comes along.
> Your later comments make me suspect that this was a red herringYour whole approach makes me suspect you're being willfully obstructive.
> anyway.
> > > > > > It's the way to do it.In mixing up the two.
> > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marching
> > > > >
> > > > > First this was supposed to refer to unordered masses, now
> > > > > it's supposed to also refer to the military too, and also
> > > > > in a specific formation this time.
> > > >
> > > > What 'this'? Which of *kaN-t- and *Lun,-?
> > >
> > > The latter, if I've stayed on track.
> >
> > I'm afraid you haven't.
>
> Okay, where AM I off the track then?
> If we are on the derivation of "long", I do presume you're arguingI do indeed argue for an origin of "long" from *LuN and not *kaNt.
> for an origin from *LuN and not *kaNt.
> > > You're trying to derive *LuN > "unordered group" > "marchingThis is my definition, so I get to call the shots. It is an unordered (and un-orderly) line of people moving through the landscape.
> > > soldiers" > "line" > "long", right?
> >
> > No, leave out the "marching soldiers".
>
> Well then; a line is not an unordered group. Very much the contrary.
> If you are NOT basing the argument on such an intermediate, wasOh, I see what you mean; it's in
> "having to do with march thru the landscape" just a diversion after
> all?