Re: Odp: Odp: [tied] Desatemized Germanic

--- In cybalist@..., tgpedersen@... wrote:

> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: tgpedersen@...
> > To: cybalist@...
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 4:24 PM
> > Subject: Re: Odp: Odp: [tied] Desatemized Germanic
> >
> >
> > --- In cybalist@..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...> wrote:
> > > Nope, AFAIK. And the reintroduction of *kW etc. would have been
> > even more difficult. Evolution does not flow back like that.
> > >
> > > Piotr
> >
> > Does that include -k- in Russian <v ruké>?
> > Also Norwegian <mote> 'fashion' (<- French 'mode' and purge of
> > Danish /d/ in the Danish/other Scandinavian d/t shibboleth, comes
> to
> > mind.
> > Or final -a in coll. Swedish <timma> (for <timme>) 'hour'?
> > Swedish after the liberation from the Danes and Norwegian in the
> 19th
> > century seem to me perfect examples languages "flowing backwards".
> >
> > > Torsten
> >
> >
> --- In cybalist@..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...> wrote:
> > But any deliberate "reversal" engineered by non-linguists is

likely

> to leave a residue of older forms overlooked by the "purifiers".

Show

> me a single example of residual satem developments in Germanic.
> >
> > Russian does display effects of the second palatalisation e.g.

root-

> initially (cena, celyj, cvet, zvezda), though not in declensional
> alternations. But the "declensional dispalatalisation" is easily
> explicable as due to the combined influence of analogy and the non-
> palatalising northern dialectal substrate. It isn't a wholesale
> reversal of the historical process -- just a "local" analogical
> simplification.
> >
> > Piotr
> >
>
> But that "easy explication" is identical to the mechanism I call a
> shibboleth purge! And as for a shibboleth partner language; I seem

to

> recall that Poles and Russians haven't got along great all the time
> at least in historical times (although I don't have a time handle

on

> the second Slavic palatalisation).
> As to "linguists" affecting the development of language: For your
> argument to work, "linguists" should be a recent (say, post 1800)
> phenomenon (apart for the fact that Norwegian <mote> <- Fr. <mode>
> doesn't show the hand of an expert linguist!). Greek, Sanskrit and
> Latin writers have all had a lot to say about how language should

be

> saved from "corruption" i.e. change.
>
> Another example comes to mind:
>
> Dutch German Danish
> dapper tapfer tapper
>
> This word was borrowed into Danish from German. pf/p is a

recognized

> shibboleth between German and Danish, hence pf -> p. But t/d isn't,
> so the initial t- was not changed. From the standpoint of

historical

> linguistics the word is abnormal. From a Danish sentimental point

of

> view, it has to do with the Schleswig wars and "den tapre
> landsoldat", the stock phrase for the Danish soldier. Now where is
> the hand of the linguist in his study in this?
>
> Torsten

Now suddenly I discover you said "non-linguist". Next time I'll wait
five minutes before I answer.

Torsten
(hope I spelled it right this time)