dive (was Re: Sos-)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Torsten" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, johnvertical@ wrote:

[...]

>>> Yes, you don't accept my proposals. That is an unreasoned opinion,

>> I've tried to explain my reasons several times.

> Not against this one.

To the considerable extent that his objections are methodological,
he needn't explain them each time.

[...]

>> The -k set is limited to "suck", and the -mp set is limited to
>> "swamp". There's no overlap between these and I see no grounds to
>> connect them.

> My grounds for combining the 'labial series' and the 'velar series'
> is that I claim the root they descend from is from the combined
> ar-/ur- and geminate language, and both the ar-/ur- language and
> the geminate language, according to their respective authors, have
> labial/velar alternation in auslaut.

You've not answered the objection. That labial/velar alternation
is irrelevant if there's no good reason to combine the sets in
the first place, and the clear semantic distinction between the
two sets is hardly a reason to combine them.

[...]

>>>> The Baltic Finnic direct descendant *säNki primarily means
>>>> "stubble".
>>>> A later development of sense is "a patch of field or garden",

>>> From "stubble"? Why would you want to have your garden there, of
>>> all places?

>> "stubble in field" (attested, primary)
>> "a section of field which has stubble (has been harvested)"
>> (attested as the compound _sänkipelto_)
>> "a section of field or garden" (attested)

>> Also, straws used to be used as a mattress filling. That possibly
>> cuts some corners: in a bed (as opposed to just sleeping on a
>> bench, or on the floor) one would in fact be sleeping on something
>> stubbly.

> That's pretty horrible, semantically.

Certainly no worse than many of yours, and the connection of 'bed'
with 'section of garden' does have the obvious Gmc. parallel.

[...]

> > I keep seeing this apparent principle "if they have some
> > resemblance, it cannot be a coincidence" behind your (and some
> > others') reasoning, but this is a false conviction.

> That conviction of yours is false.

Not really: it *is* the way you operate in fact, whatever you may
claim in theory.

> I don't exclude the possibility that my proposal is wrong, but i
> won't accept that it is until someone proves it.

Which of course can never happen.

[...]

>>>>> The alternation is also manifested as a/o:, BTW.

>>>> Which alternation, and where?

>>> Germanic: cake/cookie, hat/hood etc and the whole Class VI strong
>>> verbs
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_strong_verb#Class_6

>> What makes you think this is the same alternation and not a
>> different one?

> Occam. What makes you think it is a different one?

Ockham's Razor isn't quite so easily applied as that. You require
an assumption that the contexts are related, and it's not clear that
this is simpler than the alternative.

>> That looks like it would be easiest to explain from a substratal
>> *o (Gmc, lacking that, would substitute either *a to retain the
>> quantity, or *o: to retain the quality).

> The easiest is no doubt to see it as reflecting an alternation
> either o/o: or a/a: in the substrate, since both would become a/o:.

'No doubt' is a statement of opinion.

>> And isn't "cook" from Latin anyway?

Yes, but it's not related to <cookie>, which is probably a borrowing
of Du. <koekje>, diminutive of <koek> 'cake'.

[...]

>> No, one vowel change does not need to imply others.

> A plain, non-nasalised vowel can't change much without bumping into
> the other plain, non-nasalised vowels, which means they have to
> move too, generally in the same direction within the vowel triangle.

Or merge.

[...]

>>> Why would I propose a mechanism that is possible but not really
>>> reflected in the data?

>> Because that's pretty much all I've ever seen you propose.

> You keep saying that without substantiating it.

Not true, though you may be unable to see why we think that your
proposed mechanisms often aren't really reflected in the data.

Brian