Re: [tied] Re: Non-IE elements in Scandinavian

----- Original Message -----

From: Thomas Nordengen

To: Cybalist

Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 5:40 PM

Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Non-IE elements in Scandinavian

Thomas wrote:

Although this idea is unpopular among linguists, it is a fact that someone lived in Scandinavia before the Germanic peoples.

Unpopular? Well, I thought linguists, too, knew that someone lived there before the Germani. The question is only if any traces of that pre-Germanic linguistic substrate are still detectable. And the chief problem is how to demonstrate that any particular Germanic trait is substratal. Simplistic solutions like labelling any unfamiliar-looking lexeme "non-IE" will not produce a reliable reconstruction: you will merely get a list of etymologically doubtful words. How could anyone falsify any interpretation of such words for which there's no independent support? Vennemann's attempts to find Afroasiatic etymologies for obscure Germanic items are controversial and very likely misguided (great scholars may also err like hell), but at least there is something systematic about them, and that's a methodological advantage. He's trying to discover a regular pattern -- and if he doesn't succeed, his theory will fall.

I've also noticed that all my suggestions for non-IE words have been
explained etymologically as IE. Although it is possible for example to explain 'fjell' as derived from 'fall', then about any word can be
explained as derived from another. Torsk = cod could for example be
explained as derived from tosk = jerk/idiot.

"Torsk" < "tosk" would be formally irregular and therefore problematic. It's also less convincing semantically than an association like "fall > slope > hill" (then, from the strictly formal point of view, the "Fels" connection looks marginally preferable to me, and it's still better semantically). And seriously: those who have proposed IE etymologies for your items just wanted to show that obscure-looking words aren't always as mysterious as they seem. Most of the etymologies offered by Cybalist members are quite good, if not absolutely certain. They don't prove that the words are IE; they only show that they may be IE and therefore the assumption of their extra-IE origin is not necessary. Actually, I agree that "fjell" is probably the least transparent case. On the other hand, "hav" has so many convincing Germanic cognates with probable IE connections elsewhere that believe me, it just gotta be IE.

Piotr