From: Torsten
Message: 68668
Date: 2012-03-01
>http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/30032?var=0&l=1
> 2012/2/29, Torsten <tgpedersen@...>:
> >
> >> 2012/2/29, Torsten <tgpedersen@>:
> >> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
> >> > <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> 2012/2/28, Torsten <tgpedersen@>:
> >> >>
> >> >> >> > 'calles' has root 'a', thus it is a 'mot populaire' and
> >> >> >> > as such not directly descended from PIE by the same route
> >> >> >> > as 'regular' Latin. Ie. it is a loan.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> No.
> >> >> >> 1) 'Mot populaire' doesn't mean 'loan'.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I think it does.
> >> >
> >> >> Please demonstrate it
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > That I think so?
> >> > I assume you want me to tell why I prefer that explanation.
> >> > It's like this:
> >> >
> >> > 1. The 'mots populaires' belong to a particlar semantic sphere,
> >> > namely that pertaining to lower classes of Roman society. You
> >> > would not see that skewed distribution if they had been
> >> > descended from PIE the same way as other Latin words.
> >> >
> >> > 2. Kuhn pointed out that many Latin words with root -a- have
> >> > correspondences with root -a- in Germanic.
> >> > I am sure those -a-'s can 'explained' as reflexes of -h2-, butNo, I didn't. This is what happened
> >> > I feel that is contrived. Given the etnic and linguistic
> >> > environment at the time of the ethnogensis of Romans and
> >> > Germani I prefer to ascribe them to a language or several
> >> > related languages present both places at the requisite time.
> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> 2) There are plenty of sources for Latin /a/
> >> >> >> e.g. from */e/ after PIE pure velar */k/
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I also think pure velars indicate loans.
> >> >
> >> >> Same as above
> >> >
> >> > Pure velars tend to occur with -a-. Therefore I suspect they
> >> > have the same origin.
> >> >
> > Please add your comments *after* the paragraph you comment on, so
> > that Brian or I won't have to do it for you.
> >
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
> > <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@> wrote:
> >>
> >> Right guess, I wanted You to demonstrate why You prefer that
> >> explanation
> > I don't understand your use of 'demonstrate' in that context.
> You wrote that You think 'mot populaire' means 'loan'.
> >> 1) 'Mot populaire' doesn't mean 'loan'.The only way I can get that to match what you claim is by assuming that you think I don't know that 'mot populaire' translates to English "popular/folksy word". Actually I do know that.
> >
> > I think it does.
> Please demonstrate it
> Since 'populaire' means 'of the folk' and English 'loan' isI will now explain what I meant above: I think the 'mots populaires', ie those covered by that term as used by Ernout-Meillet, are loans in the Latin language.
> 'emprunt' in French, it follows that 'popular' doesn't coincide with
> 'loan'. So, if You nevertheless think that 'mot populaire' means
> 'loan', I would like a logical argumentation that in this case 'mot
> populaire' implies being a loanword.
> >They have have also been characterised as words belonging to the lower class *and* religious sphere.
> >> On one side You are so tough that You want all semantic groups
> >> to show *exactly* the same phonemic distribution, although one
> >> can always group words with one phoneme and then affirm that such
> >> phoneme characterizes their prevailing meaning ('populaire' is
> >> very vague for the complex of Latin words with /a/ of
> >> non-laryngeal origin: cacumen calamitas calare calidus callis
> >> calx cancer candere cardo carina carinare caro carpere carpinus
> >> carrere caterua scabere scalpere scamnum scandere scatere;
> >> auillus caudex cauere cauilla cauos fauere fauila fauis(s)ae
> >> Fauonius Faui fauos fraus laus lauere pauere rauos; malleus malus
> >> manere manus marcere mare margo maritus mateola; canis fax
> >> quaerere qualum/s quatere squalus suasum uacca uagus ualgus
> >> ualuae uas uastus; flagrare frangere gradior labra lac magnus
> >> nassa trabs; fraces lapis latus patere sacena aries gramen
> >> gramiae trahere faba; castrare farcire farnus fastigium
> >> ianitrices mala nancire pando panus passer quattuor sarcire
> >> sarire spargere uannus);
> >> You are quite severe when You define 'contrived' theI can't make sense of that sentence.
> >> explanations through *h2 (but that's simply Your "feeling", as
> >> You write);
> >
> > Yes. Thus I don't 'define' it as contrived.
> >
> OK You are quite severe when You feel that the explanations
> through *h2 are 'contrived'
> >The Germanic homeland in the 2nd - 1st century BCE was what is now Southern Poland, Belarus and Western Ukraine
> >> on the other side You are so confident as to postulate whole
> >> languages (never attested as such) in the ethnogesis of Romans
> >> and Germani (which languages?)
> > Venetic. Possibly Dacian/Thracian.
> Do You have any proof of the presence of Venetic and possibly
> Dacian or Thracian in the Proto-Germanic Homeland?
> If yes, which one?
> >> You can be skeptical about laryngeal etymologies, but then YouVenetic is not conjectural.
> >> must be even more skeptical about substrates;
> >
> > No.
> Aha. Do You think then that IE needs to be more justified than
> everything else? More than conjectural substrates?
> >That's not a matter of principle for me; in this case the existence of the substrate language I chose is well documented.
> >> otherwise You can postulate substrates, but a fortiori You
> >> have to accept laryngeal and other hereditary explanations
> >
> > No.
> Maybe You like strong adfirmations, but Your adfirmations are in
> some cases too poorly argumented.
> So, please, why should substrates have privileges that
> hereditary explanations don't have?
> Wouldn't it be better if we used one and the same criterion for allWhich one would that be?
> etymologies?
> >They can be true, but in priciple we can't verify that. That's why we precede them by an asterisk.
> >> even if these make redundant substrate hypotheses
> >
> > They don't.
> >
>
> Laryngeal etymologies can be measured. They can be correct at
> phonological, lexical, and morphological level or not.
> If they are correct, they reach the best linguistic standard.Here you must be using the word 'correct' in some other sense, such as 'complying with the current practice of linguists'.
> Documented substrates can offer an alternative. Of courseErh, okay.
> substrate etymologies must be correct as well. If so, they are at
> the same level of correct hereditary etymologies.
> Not documented substrates are hypothetical.Venetic and Dacian/Thracian are documented.
> They can indeed be postulated, especially if there aren't hereditarySince Venetic and Dacian/Thracian are documented, your above remarks don't apply.
> etymologies. If, on the contrary, there are correct hereditary
> etymologies, substrate etymologies (from not documented substrates)
> are praeter necessitatem