From: tgpedersen@...
Message: 6608
Date: 2001-03-16
>methodological reasons or similar apply in this case too? BTW, I
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: tgpedersen@...
> To: cybalist@...
> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 1:01 PM
> Subject: [tied] Re: House and City
>
>
>
> Actually, wanderwort is what I propose for this lump. Would your
--- In cybalist@..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...> wrote:
> So do many other languages worldwide, since coronal
sonorants "flock together" in phonology; [d] often participates in
such alternations as well. Many languages lack the contrast between
laterals and rhotics and may have a single phoneme with [r/l]-like
allophones instead. But this doesn't mean that we have a licence to
match any *-r- with any *-l- if it suits our pet theory,
Torsten:
I see. In the particular instance we are discussing I suggested a
wanderwort originating in Austric, ie.
burunga- "clan" Arosi
barangay- "communal unit usually
smaller than village, ship" Philippines
baronga- "character, disposition, nature" Arosi
perangai- "character, nature, disposition" Indonesia, Malay
bal.u- "village, community, house" Proto-Austric
(Benedict)
fera- "village" Proto-Malaitan
puruwa- "village" Faita
peuru- "village" Bilua
felakoe- "village, ship" Lavukaleve
and suggested this was reflected in various IE and AA words. I fail
to see where your complaint fits in here and I don't think I need a
licence to posit *-l/r- here.
Piotr:
especially if we allow ourselves even more comparative latitude (*bH-
= *p-) at the same time,
Torsten:
Well, look at the Austric roots. I can't possibly narrow it down
further than *bH/*p with a clean conscience. I think the problem is
that you insist on the IE roots being internal, thus begging the
question of whether they are Austric loan words. And within the last
month in cybalist, similar and worse matches have been proposed. I
don't recall you protesting then.
Piotr:
and ignore all morphological extensions and productive suffixes (it's
the root that counts, isn't it?). Sporadic manner-of-articulation
variability is a fact of life, but intemperate recourse to it to
explain prehistoric forms for which we have no documentary evidence
is unacceptable.
Torsten:
Intemperate? Moi? Should I join a temperance society?
I have been trying to make heads and tails of this turgid peace of
prose for some days now. I give up. I think it says that you can't
reconstruct past linguistic forms, but that would put Piotr out of a
job, so that can't be it. What do you mean, Piotr?
Piotr:
I am prepared to consider *per- as a Near-Eastern wanderwort (with
one or two question marks), but *bHerg^H- and *polh1- have their own
histories and semantic connections, and there is no ground for
dumping or lumping them together (d- and l- are really the same,
huh?).
>
Torsten:
This would be true if they were not Wanderworte. You are just
restating your belief.
Piort:
> An etymological proposal is more compelling if you are able to
place the term being analysed within an attested formal paradigm.
Torsten:
"attested formal paradigm"? What on earth do you mean? As it stands,
it would imply you could't recover loan words from non-inflecting
languages?
Piotr:
If you give priority to the cultural implications and other non-
linguistic aspects of your hypothesis, neglecting the underlying
phonological and morphological analysis, or if you try to explain the
formal shortcomings away by arbitrary recourse to putative variation
in foreign sources, you won't construct a convincing case.
Torsten:
Note in the margin of the priest's Sunday sermon: "Bad argument.
Raise your voice".
>
> Piotr
>
Torsten