Re: [tied] Re: Why did Proto-Germanic break up?

31-10-03 15:32, tgpedersen wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski
> <piotr.gasiorowski@...> wrote:
>> 27-10-03 12:48, tgpedersen wrote:
>>
>> > Germanic has 30% non-IndoEuropean roots.
>>
>> Do you have to repeat this on a list devoted to discussing a
> different
>> language family? "30%" is an informal and subjective assessment (as
> far
>> as I know, nobody has ever done any precise calculations) of the
>> proportion roots that don't seem to be regular reflexes of known IE
>> morphemes. That's a far cry from claiming that they aren't IE. They
> can
>> also be:
>>
>> (1) loans from other (perhaps still unrecognised) IE sources;
>> (2) words not borrowed but coined in pre-Germanic or Proto-Germanic;
>> (3) IE roots that thanks to a quirk of chance happened to survive
> in
>> just one branch (of course it would be very hard either to prove or
> to
>> disprove their IE status);
>> (4) roots mistakenly believed to be non-IE, because the correct
>> etymology has not yet been discovered.
>>
>> As for "30%" as the number of problematic roots, the number is
>> controvesial to say the least and ought not to be circulated so
>> lightheartedly. Since it lacks scholarly substantiation, it's just
> gossip.
>>
> Joe Salmons: Northwest IE vocabulary and substrate phonology
> in
> Perspectives on IE Language, Culture & Religion, vol II
>
> "
> ...Indeed, a careful survey of the relevant vocabulary leads Markey
> to conclude that 28% of the core vocabulary of Germanic is of non-
> Indo-European origin [Thomas L. Markey: The Celto-Germanic 'Dog/Wolf'-
> champion and the integratin of Pre/Non-IE ideals. NOWELE 11:23 and
> elsewhere]. Likewise for Celtic, Campanile (1976: 138) finds,
> coincidentally, that 28% of his sample uncompounded Old Cornish words
> are of unknown origin, after subtracting Indo-European items and
> loans from Germanic and Romance.
> "

OK, you deserve credit for finding a reference. Let's make it "28%
according to Markey", leaving aside the question which roots are
"relevant". I still think the number is exaggerated, but I'd have to
look at Markey's original article to form an opinion about his data and
criteria. I wonder how they know that all unetymologisable roots are
really of non-IE origin.

> Gossip, my foot.

I retract "gossip" now that you've presented a source. Fair is fair.

> I suggest the real reason you're so upset is that
> people on the Austronesian list took my Germanic-from-Pontus idea
> seriously and that you can't censor me there.

Torsten, I don't even moderate your postings here, let alone censor or
delete them. If you really see yourself as persecuted by an evil
moderator, it's beyond my power to help you.

Piotr