From: Cohen, Izzy
Message: 5410
Date: 2001-01-10
----- Original Message -----
From: Torsten Pedersen
To: cybalist@egroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 12:38 PM
Subject: [tied] Re: etruscan
BTW, aren't the Iranian languages Grimmian-shifting? fshumans, "rich"?
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 16:45:08 +0100
From: "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...>
Subject: Re: Compounds
Of course in some languages (that's certaily the case of French) practically
all compounds are lexicalised noun phrases which, unsurprisingly, preserve
the phrasal order of elements. Such is the case of Tibetan, where N-N
compounds have the modifier-head structure (they derive from genitive + noun
phrases) but compound nouns involving an adjective have the head-modifier
order N-Adj (again, this order is normal in phrases). But Germanic (and IE)
N-N compounds (with exceptions like daisy or Wednesday) do not contain an
etymological genitive and don't necessarily correspond, historically or
synchronically, to Gen + N phrases: "toothbrush" is not equivalent to
tooth's (or teeth's) brush. The modifier has a very general function here,
"something to do with a tooth or teeth". The whole phenomenon is a matter of
word-internal syntax rather than the grammar of English phrases.
Modifier-head is the unmarked order in endocentric N-N compounds in any
language that adds inflections at the end of words, since with this order
the compound doesn't differ from the head in isolation in matters of
declension, grammatical gender, etc., and "split compounds" with inflections
sandwitched between the constituents can be avoided at the same time.
Needless to say, the marked order is not absolutely ruled out, but there
must be some special reason for its occurrence.
Of course in Modern English any phrase can be converted into a compound, but
such compounds are typically headless, i.e. exocentric: forget-me-not,
go-between, might-have-been, etc. Problems of inflection (or whatever passes
for noun inflection in English) are solved in a radically simple way:
[forget-me-not]s, etc.
V-N exocentric compounds like spoilsport, lackland, cutthroat, sawbones,
scarecrow or turnkey are most likely modelled on similar French formations;
at any rate they were unknown before Middle English. Here again English
speakers don't worry about fine points of logic and semantics as much as the
French do and form plurals as if for simplex words: spoilsports =
[[spoil][sport]]s, etc. I even think sawboneses = [[saw][[bone]s]]s is
acceptable beside haplological sawbones (pl.). This is because the English
plural ending behaves more like an enclitic than a real desinence.
Piotr
----- Original Message -----
From: petegray
To: cybalist@egroups.com
Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2001 5:09 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] People of the Rivers - Thought #3
>*k:al-axwa "female-in-law" consisting of *axwa
> "brother" and *k:al-, presumably "woman".
Isn't that the sort of "compounding" that you find in Semitic? "word-God"
(accent producing a reduction in vocalism of the first element to what is
called a "construct" form) = "word of God". So here, "woman-of brother".
Peter
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 00:48:24 +0100
From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <mcv@...>
Subject: Re: eye
On Fri, 15 Dec 2000 20:52:32 -0000, "petegray"
<petegray@...> wrote:
>>initial *h3- for this word (*h3ekw) would
>> seem to be in conflict with the reduplicated *i:kw- forms found in
>> Sanskrit and Greek. In Greek, *h3i-h3kw- should give *yo:kw- (zo:p-,
>> ho:p-, zo:b-, ho:b-?), shouldn't it?
>
>I don't follow that argument. #HiV- might well give zV or yV, but here we
>don't have HiV, we have HiH, which could give Hi: > i:, which is just what
>we find.
I'm just back, and I don't have a lot of time to look for references.
There is a theory (by who?) that in Greek:
ih2 -> ia
ih3 -> io
ih1 -> i:
The evidence I've seen (despite a few exceptions) seems pretty
convincing. Similar claims for, I believe, Armenian and Tocharian
have also been made.
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 00:56:22 +0100
From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <mcv@...>
Subject: Re: More on the crummy sanguis/asrk connection
On Fri, 15 Dec 2000 20:19:47 +0100, "Piotr Gasiorowski"
<gpiotr@...> wrote:
>If the Latin "kidney" word reflects the PIE "kidney" word, we need less
semantic zigzagging to get from "kidney" to "groin" ("gland" > "testicle" >
"groin" looks better to me). If, then, Latin <inguen> is not related to
*negWH-r-, the evidence for a heteroclitic neuter is seriously weakened. As
for the Balto-Slavic "bum/groin" connection, the semantics is again
difficult.
Well, the Lith. word is translated as "Lende" and cf. OPol.
<le,dz'wica> "kidney" from <le,dz'wie> "loin" (Ban'kowski II, 29).
My proposal has the advantage that the *-no- suffix is functional
('that pertaining to the loins'), whereas in Anttila's proposal, it
isn't. And no metathesis.
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 01:09:27 +0100
From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <mcv@...>
Subject: Re: More on the crummy sanguis/asrk connection
On Mon, 18 Dec 2000 23:10:12 +0100, "Piotr Gasiorowski"
<gpiotr@...> wrote:
>On the other hand, EIEC supports the analysis of sanguen- as
*h1sh2an-gW-en-, though neither the *-gW- nor the double nasal extension is
justified; nor is any parallel case offered. I suppose the argument would
boil down to "Skt. -k in asr.k is a mysery and sanguen is a mystery, so
maybe they're the same mystery".
Which "double nasal extension"? The first *-en- (in *h1sh2{en}gw-) is
part of the root, and can only loosely be referred to as the
"heteroclitic *-en-extension". The second *-en- is no more mysterious
than the *-en in <pecten> "comb" from the root *pekt-.
As far as I'm concerned, the case is clear. The -k in Skt. <asrk>
more than likely comes from PIE *gw. The heteroclitic paradigm
must've once been *h1ésh2rgw, *h1sh2ángw-, later reshaped to
*h1esh2r[gw], *h1esh2(a)n-, with loss of the *gw in the oblique cases
(and except in Vedic, in the absolutive too) by analogy with the more
common heteroclitic pattern. Except in Latin, where the oblique form
was used to create a new n-stem paradigm.
Now, the challenging bit might be explaining if and if so how (Pre- ?)
Greek *saimen- (> <haima>) fits in.
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 01:10:27 +0100
From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <mcv@...>
Subject: Re: More on the crummy sanguis/asrk connection
On Fri, 15 Dec 2000 21:56:44 , "Glen Gordon"
<glengordon01@...> wrote:
>Eat some turkey (or whatever unfortunate creature they eat in Poland)
Carp, as it happens.
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 01:14:38 +0100
From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <mcv@...>
Subject: Re: p>zero Celts
On Sun, 17 Dec 2000 16:29:07 -0200, João Simões Lopes Filho
<jodan99@...> wrote:
>How was the evolution PIE *p > Celtic *zero?
>
>p>f>h>zero?
I've seen the /h/-phase illustrated by Hercynia Silva (*herkunia <
*perkunia).
I don't think /f/ is a necessary intermediate step. The development
might have been /p/ (phonetic [ph], as in English, or Welsh) > /h/ >
zero. Similarly in Armenian.
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 20:48:08 -0500
From: "Christopher Gwinn" <sonno3@...>
Subject: Re: p>zero Celts
> >How was the evolution PIE *p > Celtic *zero?
> >
> >p>f>h>zero?
>
> I've seen the /h/-phase illustrated by Hercynia Silva (*herkunia <
> *perkunia).
>
> I don't think /f/ is a necessary intermediate step. The development
> might have been /p/ (phonetic [ph], as in English, or Welsh) > /h/ >
> zero. Similarly in Armenian.
We have to consider here the early Lepontic form (written in a variant of
the Etruscan alphabet):
uvamo (from PIE *up-m-o)
Unfortunately, we can't be certain of the exact way to interpret the -v-
(whether it is like the English -v-, or represents perhaps English -w-).
Lepontic is likely a very close cousin of Gaulish, if not an actual Gaulish
dialect, and had already mutated PIE -kw- into -p-.
-Chris Gwinn
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 03:12:34 +0100
From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <mcv@...>
Subject: Re: Re: PIE conjugations
On Sat, 23 Dec 2000 10:50:29 +0100, "Piotr Gasiorowski"
<gpiotr@...> wrote:
[regarding:]
>Singular Plural
>1 bhéroh2 bhéromes
>2 bhéreth2e? bhérete
>3 bhérei bhéronti
>Many thanks, Mark. Of course, /th2e/ = *th2a. The question whether there
should be a final *-i in the first two persons is really moot. Hittite
endings (-(ah)hi, -ti, archaic -he, -te < *-h2a-i, *-th2a-i)
I have a slight problem with this. The Hittite cuneiform for <he> and
<hi> are the *same* sign (#335 in Ruester & Neu's list). True, there
is a <he2> (#113), but it can also be read as <hi2>. The same
problems apply to the signs <te> (#249) [also read <de4> or <ti7>] and
<ti> (#37) [also read <di3> or <te9>]. Finally, we have sign #312
which is both <de> and <di>, but also <ti4>. Ruester & Neu fail to
point out which of the syllabic readings are found in Old or Young
Hittite, but I find it far from obvious that the Hittite forms should
necessarily and exclusively be reconstructed as *-h2ai and *-th2ai. A
perfectly good case can be made for *-h2i and *-th2i (with lack of
palatalization as in *dhi > ti as opposed to *ti > (z)zi and *di > si)
instead of or beside *-h2ai and *-th2ai. The shape of the past tense
1sg. *-hun shows that *-m was added to *-h2 directly, not to *-h2a.
>suggest it should be there (and also in the plural: -meni/-weni, while the
stable *-o: of the 1sg in the non-Anatolian branches points to *-o-h2 (with
*-o- on the analogy of -o-m?).
Vide infra.
Regarding the earlier posting:
>The details differ somewhat from author to author, but *bHere- is
conjugated more or less like the rest of Class II (*bHeroh2(i), *bhereth2ai,
*bHerei). I'm not sure about Adams's favourite endings; I'd have to go to my
institute library to check that, and that won't happen until early next
millennium. But Mark has a copy of his own and if we ask him politely, maybe
he'll be good enough to check the details in the article on the
"Proto-Indo-European Language" and tell us how Adams conjugates *bHere-.
(Would you, Mark?) Anyway it's clear that *bHere-si and *bHere-ti are
innovated (they don't occur in some branches in the thematic conjugation),
while "*bHero:" is an old form.
I'm confused as to what exactly a 2sg. *-eth2ai (or *-eth2a) is
supposed to explain. It might explain the Tocharian 2sg. ending in
*-t, but that is not an exclusively thematic form, which makes it less
relevant to the discussion of the PIE thematic present. The
"problematic" forms of the 2/3sg in the thematic conjugation (which do
not have *-esi and *-eti) are the Greek and Balto-Slavic forms. They
are:
2sg. 3sg.
Greek: -eis, -ei
Lith.: -i, -a
OCS: -es^i, -etU
Now the Greek forms are easily explained if we depart from the
traditional thematic reconstructions. We have:
present past
*-esi *-es
*-eti *-et,
which by regular phonetic development become:
*-ei *-es
*-esi *-e.
The -s from the past tense is restored in the 2sg. present (but in the
wrong place):
*-eis *-es
*-esi *-e,
and then, by analogy with past tense *-es, *-e, the present tense
forms become *-eis, *-ei.
This certainly makes more sense than explaining -eis from *-eth2ai
(which cannot be done).
As to the Balto-Slavic forms, the 2sg. is indeed mysterious. The
Lithuanian form goes back to *-ei, while the final -i in OCS -es^i
must also go back to *-ei. The most likely hypothesis is that the
lack of *-s in Lithuanian was brought about by a re-analysis of 2sg.
*es-sei "you are" as *es-ei. The OCS -i is likewise transferred from
<esí> "you are", and in fact all Slavic lgs. except OCS testify to a
form *-es^I, with short *-i. Whatever the raison d'être of
Balto-Slavic 2sg. *-ei in the verb "to be" (cf. also OPruss. asmai "I
am", more anon), it has little to to with the *thematic* conjugation
("to be" is athematic).
Remains the problem of Slavic *s^. Usually this (and its
unpalatalized counterpart *x) derive from PIE *s after *i, *u, *r and
*k, but of course, this being the thematic conjugation, the preceding
sound is necessarily *e. The only other possibilities are the cluster
*sj (as in <s^iti> < *sju:- "to sew") and the PIE unitary phoneme *sw
(as in <s^estI> "six"). Maybe a case could be made for *-es-jI in
conjunction with 3sg. *-e-tU, i.e. postfixed pronouns *yos and *tos,
but, frankly, 2nd person deixis for the pronoun *yos is unexpected. I
prefer to see Slavic *-eswi as evidence for the pronominal origin of
the PIE active conjugation (postfixed *-mu and *-tu, with developement
*-tu > *-tw > *-sw > *-s in the Auslaut).
The Balto-Slavic 3rd.p. sg. *-e (Slav. *-e-tU with postfixed pronoun
[sometimes lacking], as opposed to expected -tI < *-ti in the
athematic conjugation; Lith. -a ultimately from *-e, apparently due to
the i-stems) can be seen as a B-S innovation for now. It certainly
does not point to *-ei.
In summary, I find it far from clear that *-esi and *-eti are
"innovated", based on the available evidence. The main reason for
wanting to see the Greek and Balto-Slavic forms as pointing to
something similar to the "stative" conjugation (*-eth2a(i), *-e(i), or
Beekes' *-eh1i, *-e) is surely the 1sg form *-o:, which is found
practically everywhwere. It's certainly tempting to see it as
reflecting someting with *-h2, the characteristic stative/perfect/
middle ending, but unfortunately *-oh2 doesn't quite convince. For
one thing, the vowel is wrong (we'd expect *-eh2 > -a:). For another,
where did the *-i go? PIE *-o: is mysterious, but explaining it as
*-eh2i, with somehow *-o- for *-e-, and somehow loss of *-i, raises
more questions than it answers.
Since above I've argued that the PIE thematic present endings in the 2
and 3 sg. were almost certainly *-esi and *-eti, as we'd expect them
to be (except that *-esi should be *-eswi, as shown by Slavic), let's
see how far we can get by assuming expected *-omi (or, actually:
*-omwi) for the 1sg. As it happens, it gets us quite far in
comparison with *-eh2i, although unfortunately not quite where we'd
want to get. What I suggest is *-omwi > *-omwu, with umlaut of *-i to
*-u after the labialized consonant, as we've seen in the loc.pl. *-su
(< *-sw-i). Then, loss of the nasal element, giving *-owu, which
gives *-o:u as it does in the loc.sg. of the i-stems (*-ei-i > *-e:i)
and the u-stems (*-eu-i > *-eu-u > *-e:u [or: *-ou-i > *ou-u >
*-o:u]). This *-o:u, to the best of my knowledge, would account for
most of the attested forms, except that we don't find variant forms
with -au (-a:u) in Avestan or Vedic, unfortunately.
So is there really no reason to postulate a paradigm like *-eh2(i),
*-eth2(i), *-e(i) for PIE? Actually, there is. Except that the *-e-
is not the thematic vowel, but the conjunctive marker *-e-. The
"stative" differed, in my view, from the "active" by a different order
of agglutination of the constituent elements. Whereas in the active
we have ROOT-[conjunctive *-e/o-]-[thematic *-e/o-]-personal
endings-[*-i marker], in the "stative" we have ROOT-[conjunctive
*-e/o-]-personal endings-[thematic *-e/o-]-[middle
markers]-[*-i-marker]. Thus, the perfect endings *-h2a, *-th2a, *-e,
are in my view *thematic* [*-h2-e, *-th2-e, *-0-e], whereas Hittite
-hi, -thi, -i are, at least partially, *athematic* [*-h2-i, *-th2-i,
*-0-i].
The stative conjunctive would have had [athematic] *-e-h2, *-e-th2,
*-e-(t), [thematic] *-e-h2-e, *-e-th2-e, *-e-(t)-e. Now, as I've
argued elsewhere, PIE *-t became *-h1 (but not in Anatolian, nor where
analogically restored as in 3sg. past *-et due to present *-eti) as is
shown most clearly in the ins.sg. *-et (thus in Hittite) > *-eh1, or
variants like *met- ~ *meh1- "to measure". If we consider 2sg. stat.
conj. *-eth2 and apply the rule, we would get *-eh1h2, which (as long
as we cannot give uncontroversial phonetic values to the laryngeals)
might have been simplified to *-eh1 or *-eh2. In the latter case, we
have a source for the a:-conjunctives and a:-imperfects of e.g. Latin
(-a:+m, -a:+s, etc.). The former case (1sg. *-a: < *-eh2, 2sg. *-e: <
*-eh2 < *-eth2, 3sg. *-e: < *-et or *-ee) is actually attested in the
Latin future (< conjunctive) of the i- and C-conjugations (audiam,
audie:s / emam, eme:s). Finally, generalization of *-e: would be the
source of the e:-conjunctives (e.g. Latin) [partially also from normal
thematic *-e-et] and e:-pasts [partially also from normal thematic
*-et > *-eh1, where not analogically restored] (e.g. Latin, again, as
in audi-e:-bam, em-e:-bam, and Balto-Slavic, e.g. the Slavic imperfect
in -e:(j)a:xU < -e:-e:xU etc. which is parallel to the Latin one,
except with a different form of the verb "to be").
This stative conjunctive may even be the explanation we were looking
for for the mysterious Balto-Slavic *esei "you are". We have (perhaps
in order to avoid thematic-looking athematic conjunctives of the
<ero:>, <eris> kind) a "stative" conjunctive:
*es-e-h2 > *esa: + *-i > *esai (> OPr. asmai)
*es-e-th2 > *ese: + *-i > *esei (> OCS. esi, OPr. asei)
*es-e-t > *ese: + *-i --
But for the -i, these forms are parallel to Latin audiam, audie:s,
audie:t etc.
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 03:15:37 +0100
From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <mcv@...>
Subject: Re: The Googoo Hypothesis must be squashed
On Sat, 30 Dec 2000 11:04:54 +0100, "Piotr Gasiorowski"
<gpiotr@...> wrote:
>*ma:te:r may contain an original nursery-word as the root, but it's
embedded in a nice morphological setting. It's the *-te:r part that proves
its antiquity, not *ma:- alone.
Given that we have *ph2te:r "father", *mah2te:r "mother", *bhrah2te:r
"brother", I wonder if the ending wasn't actually *-h2ter- (and the
roots **pa, **ma and something to do with *bher-).
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 03:18:04 +0100
From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <mcv@...>
Subject: Re: Re: etruscan, Lydian and Greek inscriptions
On Thu, 04 Jan 2001 08:55:35 , "Glen Gordon"
<glengordon01@...> wrote:
>At any rate, for those that are more serious about Etruscan, I finally
found
>the reference that mentions the "archaic Etruscan genitive" in -n that
>Miguel was fighting against.
I wasn't fighting against it, I'd simply never heard of it.
>"Etruscan Language - An Introduction" by Giuliano & Larissa Bonfante.
>Examples include lautn "family" (gen. lautun) and puia "wife" (gen. puian).
I think Piotr's suggestion that these are denominal possessive
adjectives is correct.
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 12
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 03:19:26 +0100
From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <mcv@...>
Subject: Re: Re: etruscan, Lydian and Greek inscriptions
On Thu, 04 Jan 2001 10:40:03 -0000, s.tarasovas@... wrote:
>--- In cybalist@egroups.com, "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...> wrote:
>> Examples include lautn "family" (gen. lautun) and puia "wife" (gen.
>>puian).
>
>I wonder if this lautn can be compared to PIE *leudh- 'folk etc.'
>(and may be even puia to *gWen-).
I've see puia compared with Greek opuio: "I wed".
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 13
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 03:21:04 +0100
From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <mcv@...>
Subject: Re: Etruscan genitives
On Thu, 04 Jan 2001 22:07:08 , "Glen Gordon"
<glengordon01@...> wrote:
>I see
>another "complementary distribution" phenomenon happening with Hittite
>/-weni/ and /-meni/ which must have also been slightly different in meaning
>originally.
Hittite -meni is simply the form -weni takes after /u/.
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 14
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 20:40:47 -0700
From: "Steve Woodson" <wood2@...>
Subject: Re: Re: etruscan
It's my understanding that the Danes didn't enter the historical record
until the 5th century when they replaced the Jutes (who had settled in
Britian) in Jutland. By this time the Iranians had long ceased to be the
dominant people of the Pontic steppe. Does anyone know of an earlier
mention of them? Also, just because they're not mentioned (in any of my
books) doesn"t mean they didn't exist, of course.
----- Original Message -----
From: Darwin R. Garcia
To: cybalist@egroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 1:20 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: etruscan
----- Original Message -----
From: Piotr Gasiorowski
To: cybalist@egroups.com
Sent: 2001 January 8 Monday 20:18
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: etruscan
No, perhaps I didn't express myself clearly enough. The only area where
*da:nu- still meant 'river' about the time when the Germanic languages were
formed was the Iranian-speaking or Iranian-influenced lands. The historical
river Tanais was of course the Don, and Danastris was the Dniester, both
running where expected. If the Danes were to have received their name from
the Don or the like, you'd have to explain how they ended up as one of the
North Germanic tribes.
Possibly, the Danes were named after the river which they predominantly
used to trade with the eastern folk. The locals would not know of the
originating location of the Danes and most probably had little or no
knowledge of their language either. I wonder if this idea has any precedents
in other parts of the world/history.
eGroups Sponsor
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 15
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 22:08:35 +0100
From: Håkan Lindgren <h5@...>
Subject: Re: Etruscan
Darwin R. Garcia -
Possibly, the Danes were named after the river which they predominantly used
to trade with the eastern folk. The locals would not know of the originating
location of the Danes and most probably had little or no knowledge of their
language either. I wonder if this idea has any precedents in other parts of
the world/history.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Why would the Danes call themselves the same name as a far-away "eastern
folk" used to call them? That doesn't seem likely to me. Most peoples prefer
not to borrow their own names from other languages, for example: the Germans
are called "Germans" by the English, "Allemands" by the French, "nemeci" by
the Czech, but they call themselves "Deutsche".
Hakan
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 16
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 09:37:22
From: "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...>
Subject: Celtic *p > zero // IndoTyr *p > Tyr *f ??
Miguel on Celtic *p > something...
>I don't think /f/ is a necessary intermediate step. The development
>might have been /p/ (phonetic [ph], as in English, or Welsh) > /h/ >
>zero. Similarly in Armenian.
Don't mean to be alarmist or radical or anything but... I was thinking about
the likeliest evolutional path of IndoTyrrhenian's phonological system to
Tyrrhenian (and ultimately to Etruscan). I haven't found conclusive stuff on
the evolution of IndoTyr *p yet, but I get the feeling that:
IndoTyrrhenian Tyrrhenian Etruscan
*p *f /f,v/ ?
*b *p /p/
By having *p become *f, it completes a "fricative series" consisting of *x
(from uvularized velar stops, distinct from the IndoTyrrhenian laryngeal
written as *h) and *s' (from palatalized non-fortis dental stops).
Basically, the Tyrrhenian phonological system would contain the following:
*f *x *s' [fricative]
*p *k *t [lenis (plain)]
(*p:) *k: *t: [fortis]
And then I get to wonderin'... Could there be a possible phonetic
relationship between IE *PerkWnos and Etruscan /Velchns/ (< ? Tyrrhenian
*Felkena-se)?
At any rate, I've also found that treating mediofinal fortis stops (*t: and
*k:) like doubled plain stops or geminates works best when it comes to some
reshuffling of syllabic boundaries that require *CVC syllables only...
eg: IndoTyr *deuk:e "daughter" (CVC-CV)
=> *d'eukke (CVCC-CV !!!)
=> Tyr *s'ekke (CVC-CV)
=> Etr s'ec
The geminate thing is eerily Uralic-ish looking.
Anyways, if Tyrrhenian dialects (excluding the one that gave Etruscan and
Lemnian) spread to Europe BEFORE IndoEuropean did (starting 6000 BCE or so),
as I personally am led to believe, an early Tyrrhenian *p->*f change might
be relevant to the later Celtic and Germanic changes (both soften *p -> *f
or *h/zero, afterall). Areal influence, anyone?
Just thoughts. Feel free to crush them :)
- gLeN
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 17
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 09:49:15
From: "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...>
Subject: Etruscan /puia/ and Greek
Miguel:
>>I wonder if this lautn can be compared to PIE *leudh- 'folk etc.'
>>(and may be even puia to *gWen-).
>
>I've see puia compared with Greek opuio: "I wed".
If the word were ancient, I'd be forced to reconstruct the equivalent
Tyrrhenian form as *paya/*puya and it would have to derive from IndoTyr
*baya/*beuya. Yet, I see nothing relatable to IndoEuropean... So I find
myself liking the idea that /puia/ is a Hellenic loanword. The idea that IE
*gW is equivalent to Etruscan /p/ is unfathomable to me. IE *ghW/*gW/*kW
equals Etr UNaspirated /c/ as far as I'm concerned.
- gLeN
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 18
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 09:26:45 +0100
From: "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...>
Subject: Re: The Googoo Hypothesis must be squashed
Oh, sure, that's my suspicion too. I was just simplifying things for the
sake of exposition, skipping technical details.
Piotr
----- Original Message -----
From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
To: cybalist@egroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 3:15 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] The Googoo Hypothesis must be squashed
Given that we have *ph2te:r "father", *mah2te:r "mother", *bhrah2te:r
"brother", I wonder if the ending wasn't actually *-h2ter- (and the
roots **pa, **ma and something to do with *bher-).
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 19
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 11:05:49 +0100
From: "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...>
Subject: Re: Re: PIE conjugations
Hi, Miguel,
Hope you enjoyed your stay in Poland. I raised the problem of PIE
conjugations in order to show that what even very safe-looking fragments of
our PIE reconstruction may suddenly be found to stand in need of
revaluation. What Adams does in the EIEC is certainly a little premature. A
new type of present related -- as far as its inflections go -- to the
traditional "perfect" and to the Hittite hi-presents has probably come to
stay; but the revolutionary new look of the traditional thematic conjugation
is not yet sufficiently established to be included in a book addressed not
only to students of IE but to the general reader as well. I shall reserve my
judgement on these new tendencies till the publication of Jasanoff's
forthcoming book on PIE conjugations. It's not only the present but also the
preterite system and the relation between the two that should be
reconsidered.
Some of the complications can't be explained as easily as you propose. For
example, to get from *-eti to Greek -ei you need to assume palatalisation to
*-esi (one would expect Doric to preserve *-eti) and the analogical
restructuring of the now-opaque ending (along with that of te 2sg.) to bring
it in line with the aorist. If the proto-Greeks were so eager to level out
present and preterite endings, why didn't they do something about the first
person sg. (e.g. add a nasal to -o: as in Slavic or go the whole hog and
replace the old ending with *-oin, parallel to past-tense -on)? Explanations
that depend so heavily on analogy are difficult to constrain properly and
must remain highly conjectural.
As for the 1sg. *-o:, the chain *-omwi > *-omwu > *-owu > *-o:u > *-o: is
hardly preferable to *-o-h2, though the latter has its problems too. Even if
one accepts your labialised /mw/ and the vowel modification it causes for
the sake of the argument, the unmotivated loss of the nasal (who would have
wished to remove the most transparent element of a 1sg. ending?) and the
lack of tangible support for *-o:u make this derivation look somewhat
fanciful.
----- Original Message -----
From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
To: cybalist@egroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 3:12 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: PIE conjugations
On Sat, 23 Dec 2000 10:50:29 +0100, "Piotr Gasiorowski"
<gpiotr@...> wrote:
[regarding:]
>Singular Plural
>1 bhéroh2 bhéromes
>2 bhéreth2e? bhérete
>3 bhérei bhéronti
>Many thanks, Mark. Of course, /th2e/ = *th2a. The question whether there
should be a final *-i in the first two persons is really moot. Hittite
endings (-(ah)hi, -ti, archaic -he, -te < *-h2a-i, *-th2a-i)
I have a slight problem with this. The Hittite cuneiform for <he> and
<hi> are the *same* sign (#335 in Ruester & Neu's list). True, there
is a <he2> (#113), but it can also be read as <hi2>. The same
problems apply to the signs <te> (#249) [also read <de4> or <ti7>] and
<ti> (#37) [also read <di3> or <te9>]. Finally, we have sign #312
which is both <de> and <di>, but also <ti4>. Ruester & Neu fail to
point out which of the syllabic readings are found in Old or Young
Hittite, but I find it far from obvious that the Hittite forms should
necessarily and exclusively be reconstructed as *-h2ai and *-th2ai. A
perfectly good case can be made for *-h2i and *-th2i (with lack of
palatalization as in *dhi > ti as opposed to *ti > (z)zi and *di > si)
instead of or beside *-h2ai and *-th2ai. The shape of the past tense
1sg. *-hun shows that *-m was added to *-h2 directly, not to *-h2a.
>suggest it should be there (and also in the plural: -meni/-weni, while the
stable *-o: of the 1sg in the non-Anatolian branches points to *-o-h2 (with
*-o- on the analogy of -o-m?).
Vide infra.
Regarding the earlier posting:
>The details differ somewhat from author to author, but *bHere- is
conjugated more or less like the rest of Class II (*bHeroh2(i), *bhereth2ai,
*bHerei). I'm not sure about Adams's favourite endings; I'd have to go to my
institute library to check that, and that won't happen until early next
millennium. But Mark has a copy of his own and if we ask him politely, maybe
he'll be good enough to check the details in the article on the
"Proto-Indo-European Language" and tell us how Adams conjugates *bHere-.
(Would you, Mark?) Anyway it's clear that *bHere-si and *bHere-ti are
innovated (they don't occur in some branches in the thematic conjugation),
while "*bHero:" is an old form.
I'm confused as to what exactly a 2sg. *-eth2ai (or *-eth2a) is
supposed to explain. It might explain the Tocharian 2sg. ending in
*-t, but that is not an exclusively thematic form, which makes it less
relevant to the discussion of the PIE thematic present. The
"problematic" forms of the 2/3sg in the thematic conjugation (which do
not have *-esi and *-eti) are the Greek and Balto-Slavic forms. They
are:
2sg. 3sg.
Greek: -eis, -ei
Lith.: -i, -a
OCS: -es^i, -etU
Now the Greek forms are easily explained if we depart from the
traditional thematic reconstructions. We have:
present past
*-esi *-es
*-eti *-et,
which by regular phonetic development become:
*-ei *-es
*-esi *-e.
The -s from the past tense is restored in the 2sg. present (but in the
wrong place):
*-eis *-es
*-esi *-e,
and then, by analogy with past tense *-es, *-e, the present tense
forms become *-eis, *-ei.
This certainly makes more sense than explaining -eis from *-eth2ai
(which cannot be done).
As to the Balto-Slavic forms, the 2sg. is indeed mysterious. The
Lithuanian form goes back to *-ei, while the final -i in OCS -es^i
must also go back to *-ei. The most likely hypothesis is that the
lack of *-s in Lithuanian was brought about by a re-analysis of 2sg.
*es-sei "you are" as *es-ei. The OCS -i is likewise transferred from
<esí> "you are", and in fact all Slavic lgs. except OCS testify to a
form *-es^I, with short *-i. Whatever the raison d'être of
Balto-Slavic 2sg. *-ei in the verb "to be" (cf. also OPruss. asmai "I
am", more anon), it has little to to with the *thematic* conjugation
("to be" is athematic).
Remains the problem of Slavic *s^. Usually this (and its
unpalatalized counterpart *x) derive from PIE *s after *i, *u, *r and
*k, but of course, this being the thematic conjugation, the preceding
sound is necessarily *e. The only other possibilities are the cluster
*sj (as in <s^iti> < *sju:- "to sew") and the PIE unitary phoneme *sw
(as in <s^estI> "six"). Maybe a case could be made for *-es-jI in
conjunction with 3sg. *-e-tU, i.e. postfixed pronouns *yos and *tos,
but, frankly, 2nd person deixis for the pronoun *yos is unexpected. I
prefer to see Slavic *-eswi as evidence for the pronominal origin of
the PIE active conjugation (postfixed *-mu and *-tu, with developement
*-tu > *-tw > *-sw > *-s in the Auslaut).
The Balto-Slavic 3rd.p. sg. *-e (Slav. *-e-tU with postfixed pronoun
[sometimes lacking], as opposed to expected -tI < *-ti in the
athematic conjugation; Lith. -a ultimately from *-e, apparently due to
the i-stems) can be seen as a B-S innovation for now. It certainly
does not point to *-ei.
In summary, I find it far from clear that *-esi and *-eti are
"innovated", based on the available evidence. The main reason for
wanting to see the Greek and Balto-Slavic forms as pointing to
something similar to the "stative" conjugation (*-eth2a(i), *-e(i), or
Beekes' *-eh1i, *-e) is surely the 1sg form *-o:, which is found
practically everywhwere. It's certainly tempting to see it as
reflecting someting with *-h2, the characteristic stative/perfect/
middle ending, but unfortunately *-oh2 doesn't quite convince. For
one thing, the vowel is wrong (we'd expect *-eh2 > -a:). For another,
where did the *-i go? PIE *-o: is mysterious, but explaining it as
*-eh2i, with somehow *-o- for *-e-, and somehow loss of *-i, raises
more questions than it answers.
Since above I've argued that the PIE thematic present endings in the 2
and 3 sg. were almost certainly *-esi and *-eti, as we'd expect them
to be (except that *-esi should be *-eswi, as shown by Slavic), let's
see how far we can get by assuming expected *-omi (or, actually:
*-omwi) for the 1sg. As it happens, it gets us quite far in
comparison with *-eh2i, although unfortunately not quite where we'd
want to get. What I suggest is *-omwi > *-omwu, with umlaut of *-i to
*-u after the labialized consonant, as we've seen in the loc.pl. *-su
(< *-sw-i). Then, loss of the nasal element, giving *-owu, which
gives *-o:u as it does in the loc.sg. of the i-stems (*-ei-i > *-e:i)
and the u-stems (*-eu-i > *-eu-u > *-e:u [or: *-ou-i > *ou-u >
*-o:u]). This *-o:u, to the best of my knowledge, would account for
most of the attested forms, except that we don't find variant forms
with -au (-a:u) in Avestan or Vedic, unfortunately.
So is there really no reason to postulate a paradigm like *-eh2(i),
*-eth2(i), *-e(i) for PIE? Actually, there is. Except that the *-e-
is not the thematic vowel, but the conjunctive marker *-e-. The
"stative" differed, in my view, from the "active" by a different order
of agglutination of the constituent elements. Whereas in the active
we have ROOT-[conjunctive *-e/o-]-[thematic *-e/o-]-personal
endings-[*-i marker], in the "stative" we have ROOT-[conjunctive
*-e/o-]-personal endings-[thematic *-e/o-]-[middle
markers]-[*-i-marker]. Thus, the perfect endings *-h2a, *-th2a, *-e,
are in my view *thematic* [*-h2-e, *-th2-e, *-0-e], whereas Hittite
-hi, -thi, -i are, at least partially, *athematic* [*-h2-i, *-th2-i,
*-0-i].
The stative conjunctive would have had [athematic] *-e-h2, *-e-th2,
*-e-(t), [thematic] *-e-h2-e, *-e-th2-e, *-e-(t)-e. Now, as I've
argued elsewhere, PIE *-t became *-h1 (but not in Anatolian, nor where
analogically restored as in 3sg. past *-et due to present *-eti) as is
shown most clearly in the ins.sg. *-et (thus in Hittite) > *-eh1, or
variants like *met- ~ *meh1- "to measure". If we consider 2sg. stat.
conj. *-eth2 and apply the rule, we would get *-eh1h2, which (as long
as we cannot give uncontroversial phonetic values to the laryngeals)
might have been simplified to *-eh1 or *-eh2. In the latter case, we
have a source for the a:-conjunctives and a:-imperfects of e.g. Latin
(-a:+m, -a:+s, etc.). The former case (1sg. *-a: < *-eh2, 2sg. *-e: <
*-eh2 < *-eth2, 3sg. *-e: < *-et or *-ee) is actually attested in the
Latin future (< conjunctive) of the i- and C-conjugations (audiam,
audie:s / emam, eme:s). Finally, generalization of *-e: would be the
source of the e:-conjunctives (e.g. Latin) [partially also from normal
thematic *-e-et] and e:-pasts [partially also from normal thematic
*-et > *-eh1, where not analogically restored] (e.g. Latin, again, as
in audi-e:-bam, em-e:-bam, and Balto-Slavic, e.g. the Slavic imperfect
in -e:(j)a:xU < -e:-e:xU etc. which is parallel to the Latin one,
except with a different form of the verb "to be").
This stative conjunctive may even be the explanation we were looking
for for the mysterious Balto-Slavic *esei "you are". We have (perhaps
in order to avoid thematic-looking athematic conjunctives of the
<ero:>, <eris> kind) a "stative" conjunctive:
*es-e-h2 > *esa: + *-i > *esai (> OPr. asmai)
*es-e-th2 > *ese: + *-i > *esei (> OCS. esi, OPr. asei)
*es-e-t > *ese: + *-i --
But for the -i, these forms are parallel to Latin audiam, audie:s,
audie:t etc.
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 20
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 10:32:13 -0000
From: "Torsten Pedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
Subject: Re: etruscan
--- In cybalist@egroups.com, "Steve Woodson" <wood2@...> wrote:
> It's my understanding that the Danes didn't enter the
historical record until the 5th century when they replaced the Jutes
(who had settled in Britian) in Jutland. By this time the Iranians
had long ceased to be the dominant people of the Pontic steppe. Does
anyone know of an earlier mention of them? Also, just because
they're not mentioned (in any of my books) doesn"t mean they didn't
exist, of course.
Not unless you want to count Pytheas' "Tanais" at the end of his
journey of the ocean as a reference to Danes. I keep forgetting
whether it was Prokopios or Jordanes who wrote (and I quote from
memory): "The Danes who are of Swedish stock, drove the Heruleans
from their settlements".
We Danes of course don't like to hear that we are not autochthonous.
I read a book by a Danish writer where he tried to explain away this
sentences such that the Danes had driven the Heruleans away from the
Danes' own settlements, the Heruleans thus being the foreigners.
I think I can rescue it thus:
The writer does not say that the Danes migrated out of Sweden on that
particular occasion. Perhaps he is just explaining to his less world-
wise audience what kind of people the Danes were, since they must
have known the Swedes (Sweden being the closest to the Russian river
systems and therefore those that arrived in Byzantium in the largest
numbers).
There has been some controversy as to whether the Heruleans were a
people or a class. The word itself is found in titles (Da. jarl, En.
earl). In runic inscriptions the inscriber sometimes presents himself
as "I, the Herulean ..." (ek erilaz ...). When they were driven from
Denmark, they roamed Europe, picking fights with other tribes (when
they met the Langobards they challenged them to a fight. The
Langobards answered that the Heruleans had recently fought them and
prevailed so why now again? The Heruleans insisted. The Langobards
prevailed.) After being beaten, the Heruleans fled, back to Denmark.
The Danes helped them accross the ocean (to Sweden). Rudbeck (the
Swedish 17th century, shall we say, mythologist) came up with a
history that the Heruleans settled in Värend, in Småland (Sweden),
full of hatred of the Danes. I believe a Swedish king then exempted
then of taxes, on the basis of that story.
Contemporary writers say of the Heruleans that they were an extremely
copnservative tribe with extremely unpleasant views on preserving the
old traditions (sacrifice etc). They have also been credited with the
invention of Runes..
My own opinion is that the Heruleans were both a people and a social
class. At the same time they are driven out you find a lot a bog
corpses in Denmark and Northern Germany. I think this was a Rwanda
thing.
As for the Jutes, it is true that the general opinion in Anglophonia
is that they left Jutland (Denmark??) for England. But, as I related
in an earlier posting, there is a sharp linguistic "fault line" in
Jutland today, running North west-South east. South west you have (as
I wrote) w and hw- ("American" wh-) vs. Danish v, "thick" l, a single
gender vs. two (three in island dialects), loss of final vowel vs.
schwa (-a preserved in eastern dialects), a "I" vs jeg ("breaking", e-
-> je in the rest of Scandinavia), independent definite article æ vs
enclitic -en, -et. Folklore has it West Jutland fishermen can carry
on conversations with their English counterparts. Most Copenhagen
people find the dialect extremely difficult.
The Jutes, as the Saxons, left some behind. They didn't all emigrate.
Torsten
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 21
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 10:52:10 -0000
From: "Torsten Pedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
Subject: Re: etruscan
--- In cybalist@egroups.com, "Torsten Pedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
wrote:
> --- In cybalist@egroups.com, "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...>
wrote:
> > No, perhaps I didn't express myself clearly enough. The only area
> where *da:nu- still meant 'river' about the time when the Germanic
> languages were formed was the Iranian-speaking or Iranian-
influenced
> lands. The historical river Tanais was of course the Don, and
> Danastris was the Dniester, both running where expected. If the
Danes
> were to have received their name from the Don or the like, you'd
have
> to explain how they ended up as one of the North Germanic tribes.
> >
> > A new thought: the river name Tanew in SE Poland MIGHT suggest
that
> the earliest Germani preserved the IE term *da:nu- (VERY
speculative,
> this, but not impossible); on the other hand, Tana(w)i- can't be
> their translation of the Iranian name of the Don -- it's simply too
> old (Herodotus, ca. 440 BC), and the vocalism doesn't quite work.
> Germanic is not the only group with a Grimmian phonation-mode shift
> (Armenian is another, and some people think Thracian
or "Cimmerian",
> whatever the latter really was, had something like it too).
> >
> > At the other end of Indo-Europia, *da:nu- occurs as a river-
naming
> element in the parts of Europe settled by the Celts; *Da:neu-jo-
> s 'the (Upper) Danube' is of course the most celebrated example. No
> matter how old this element is, it would't work as the etymological
> source of *Dani- -- a badly matching root vowel, a different stem-
> termination -- not enough substance for an argument one might wish
to
> invest much enthusiasm in.
> >
> > Piotr
> >
> >
>
> Well, you wouldn't want to invest too much enthusiasm in it unless
> you were Danish, of course.
> One reason why they might end up on the Danish islands would be
that
> they had to, because they were driven out. If you are driven out of
a
> country and you have a boat, because that is the tool by which you
> live, you sail to an offshore island where you are safe, and try to
> continue your business there. That's what the Venetians did.
> On an experiment made recently, a reconstructed Viking boat
> (continuing a long boat tradition) had a draft of 1.5 meters with a
> 50 ton cargo, That is the perfect instrument for coast hugging- and
> river trading).
> Probably as well you stopped me here. Then I won't get into the
> account (I forgot from where) that when the Trojans were defeated,
> they went to the sea of Azov and founded a place named Asgard (*as,
> cf Old Norse and Etruscan/Lemnian, *gard, cf. Slavic, Old Norse and
> Semitic). Also that one of the sea peoples was named d-n- or
> something. (And I haven't even gotten to the Dani tribe of New
> Guinea;-)). Me and linguistics is like Beavis and cappucino.
> BTW, aren't the Iranian languages Grimmian-shifting?
fshumans, "rich"?
>
> Torsten
I looked up Danes in my little NuDansk Ordbog. It says O.Ic.
pl. "danir", Old Danish "dan". So where does the *-i of your *dani-
"Dane" come from? Old Icelandic has dönsk "Danish" where ö is an u-
umlauted a (if that's not part of the inflection). North Germanic
forms of "danish" or "Denmark" (Danmark) do not show umlaut.
If the wovel of *da:nu- is long, whence the Dn- of Dniepr and Dniestr?
What shortened that wovel in Don and Danube? If it is silly for a
people to call themselves a "river people", does "sea people" make
sense? If "river people" a designation for a people that has settled
on a river, does a "sea people" live by the the sea to enjoy the
view? If naming yourself by *da(:?)nu- makes no sense, how about the
Tuatha te Danan? If you can't lump Celtic and Germanic etnonyms
together, how about Cimmerians, Cimbri and Cymru?
I need another cup of coffee.
Torsten
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 22
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 10:55:52 -0000
From: "Torsten Pedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
Subject: Re: Etruscan
--- In cybalist@egroups.com, Håkan Lindgren <h5@...> wrote:
> Darwin R. Garcia -
>
> Possibly, the Danes were named after the river which they
predominantly used to trade with the eastern folk. The locals would
not know of the originating location of the Danes and most probably
had little or no knowledge of their language either. I wonder if this
idea has any precedents in other parts of the world/history.
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
>
>
> Why would the Danes call themselves the same name as a far-
away "eastern folk" used to call them? That doesn't seem likely to
me. Most peoples prefer not to borrow their own names from other
languages, for example: the Germans are called "Germans" by the
English, "Allemands" by the French, "nemeci" by the Czech, but they
call themselves "Deutsche".
>
> Hakan
But if they immigrated into Denmark from there, or used Denmark as a
base for trading there, those "estern folk" would not be far away.
Torsten
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 23
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 16:32:59 +0530
From: "Darwin R. Garcia" <darwingarcia@...>
Subject: Re: The Googoo Hypothesis must be squashed
----- Original Message -----
From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
To: cybalist@egroups.com
Sent: 2001 January 10 Wednesday 07:45
Subject: Re: [tied] The Googoo Hypothesis must be squashed
<snip>
Given that we have *ph2te:r "father", *mah2te:r "mother", *bhrah2te:r
"brother", I wonder if the ending wasn't actually *-h2ter- (and the
roots **pa, **ma and something to do with *bher-).
Well, If it's any help, here in India, bha'i is brother and bhen is sister!
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 24
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 11:09:17 -0000
From: "Torsten Pedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
Subject: Re: Accusative *-m
--- In cybalist@egroups.com, "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...> wrote:
>
> >There is one thing that has puzzled about IE acc *-m, though.
>Sanskrit -m
> >is weak, Latin -m disappears in poetry
> >according to metric rules, Greek says -m -> -n, and everywhere else
> >it disappears. Slavic nasalizes. So perhaps -m was only a
> >nasalization of the previous vowel? Note the use of -m in present
day
> >Portuguese.
>
> What previous vowel? The accusative *-m ending IS the vowel. At any
rate,
> this nasal ending is so widespread in IE languages as to give no
doubt that
> the ending was *-m. The IE plural accusative is *-ns which in all
likelihood
> was an anciently combined ending consisting of *-m (acc.sg.) plus *-
es
> (plural). Finally, the accusative *-m isn't even unique to IE.
There is a
> Uralic accusative *-m too.
>
> To explain the IE reflexes as independent nasalization is far more
> extravagant than the consensus solution.
>
> - gLeN
>
>
Independent? Of what?
A thought experiment: All Romance langauges become extinct. You find
a Portuguese inscription sg. homem, pl homens. Now reconstruct the
root. That will of course be *homem- (you have no chance of knowing
the h- is mute). The -ns of the plural will "in all likelihood" be
derived from -ms.
Torsten
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 25
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 13:05:21 +0100
From: "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...>
Subject: Re: Re: etruscan
I assumed it was *dan-i- on the basis of OE Dene (also Denisc, Dene-mearc,
etc.), which, however, is a collective noun. I'll need to take another look
at the various Germanic variants of the name to see in what form the
original stem can be recovered.
The "a" of "Danube" is shortened in English, but the Latin name (borrowed
from Celtic) was Da:nuvius. The IIr reflexes point to *da:nu- as well.
Iranian *a: would have given late Scytho-Sarmatian *a, which seems to be
reflected as Slavic *o in stressed syllables but reduced *U in pretonic
syllables, hence *don- alternating with *dUn- > modern dn-.
The full name Tuatha Dé [sic! = "Goddess's"] Danann is, as Chris Gwinn
pointed out some time ago, a rather late literary invention. Anyway, if some
Proto-Celts had named _themselves_ after a river (be it the Danube, Donwy,
or anything with *da:nu- or *da:neujo- in it), I wouldn't be surprised at
all. Many Slavic tribes, for example, derived their names from hydronyms.
But you seem to claim that somebody else named the Danes in that manner
(*dan- can't be a Germanic reflex of *da:nu-), and that they accepted the
foreigner-given name, which people are reluctant to do, on the whole.
Piotr
----- Original Message -----
From: Torsten Pedersen
To: cybalist@egroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 11:52 AM
Subject: [tied] Re: etruscan
I looked up Danes in my little NuDansk Ordbog. It says O.Ic.
pl. "danir", Old Danish "dan". So where does the *-i of your *dani-
"Dane" come from? Old Icelandic has dönsk "Danish" where ö is an u-
umlauted a (if that's not part of the inflection). North Germanic
forms of "danish" or "Denmark" (Danmark) do not show umlaut.
If the wovel of *da:nu- is long, whence the Dn- of Dniepr and Dniestr?
What shortened that wovel in Don and Danube? If it is silly for a
people to call themselves a "river people", does "sea people" make
sense? If "river people" a designation for a people that has settled
on a river, does a "sea people" live by the the sea to enjoy the
view? If naming yourself by *da(:?)nu- makes no sense, how about the
Tuatha te Danan? If you can't lump Celtic and Germanic etnonyms
together, how about Cimmerians, Cimbri and Cymru?
I need another cup of coffee.
Torsten
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________