Re: Divergence vs. convergence (was: Witzel and Sautsutras)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Jörg Rhiemeier <joerg_rhiemeier@...>
wrote:

>
> Anyway, the dictionary is not worth much because the phonology
> Pokorny uses is utterly out of date, and many items have
> semantic problems. He evidently tended to hammer things into
> place that actually did not belong there, and to contrive PIE
> etymologies for items that cannot be ascribed to PIE by any
> reasonable method. (Possibly in an reaction on the harsh
> criticism he earned earlier with his hypotheses about a Semitic
> substratum in Celtic.) It is widely recognized that Pokorny's
> dictionary has many problems, and that there indeed is a
> pressing need for a more modern PIE etymological dictionary.
>
> > Unfortunately, this is most unlikely without a major rebuilding of

the

> > current paradigm. In an earlier post, I mentioned Mallory & Adams',
> > updated with regard to "laryngeals" but largely dependent upon

earlier

> > works in semantics.
>
> Certainly, the current model of PIE is not the final word!
> The question remains, however, how radical a revision will turn
> out to be necessary. It seems certain, at least, that one has
> to distinguish between Early and Late PIE (Adrados's "PIE II"
> and "PIE III"), with Early PIE being the common ancstor of
> Anatolian and Late PIE, and Late PIE being the common ancestor
> of the non-Anatolian IE languages. But I am repeating myself.
>

Yes, this is a possible scenario, but I think it's more likely that "PIE
III" or "Kurganic" was spoken by Kurgans, i.e. the Steppe People, who
imposed it upon the autochtonous population of the Northern
Balkans-Lower Danube area, whose language was something like "PIE II".
This way, the IE family would be the result of a *creolization* process
between two different languages.

> > And since you mentioned "hammer", Pokorny wrongly
> > atttibuted Latin faber 'smith' to a "root" *dhabhr-o- 'good-fitting'

vel

> > sim, but IMHO this is actually a *phonosymbolic* root *tap- ~ *dab-
> > reflecting the hitting of metal.
>
> That may be the case. Recall also that smithing was a rather
> recent innovation in PIE times - the word cannot be earlier
> than the introduction of metals to PIE society! Perhaps the
> word is a loanword from a non-IE people of the Ancient Near
> East from whom the Indo-Europeans learned metallurgy.
>

Somebody suggested a Hurrian origin. Anyway, the word isn't "PIE" (i.e.
Kurganic) at all, but seemingly a loanword into some prehistoric IE
language(s).