--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "elmeras2000" <jer@...> wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
>
> > 'Old European' is not a descendant, but a sister to PIE.
> >
> > So, like this:
> > pre-PIE: *kän-/*kan-/*kn.-
> > 'Old European': *kan-/*kn.- (merger of /ä/ and /a/
> > its sister, PIE: *ken-/*kon-/*kn.-
>
>
> So you are making "Old European" a close relative of PIE? Well,
that
> is a novel idea, I suppose. Is that really possible? Is Old
European
> not being drawn upon when vocabulary of a completely alien stock is
> to be established? But I admit that, on its own premises, your
> scenario is completely logical. On the other hand, one must be
> allowed to ask the question: Are there other reasons to assume a
> close relationship between OEur. and PIE than the prospect of
> getting rid of a-roots and their ablaut in IE? That strikes me as a
> particularly unsatisfactory basis for a genetic classification.
>
I agree in all of the above. Unfortunately for the state of my
proposal, Vennemann's "Europa Vasconica, Europa Semitica' just
arrived at my local library, and he seems to have very good reasons
for denying the IE-ness of Old European, which I took from Krahe. I'd
have to assume instead either
1) a temporary advance of Vasconic(?) or Semitic(?) speakers over old
IE territory, /a/-ifying certain loans which were later reclaimed by
re-advancing Western IE, or
2) that the words in question are really Semitic (optionally
originally from farther away); that Proto-Semitic, as Vennemann
claims was spoken on the Atlantic side of the Spanish and African
coast (and here I'll omit mentioning sinking Canaric islands, out of
consideration for the blood pressure of possible readers of this),
and that they (and not the proto-IE) performed a sea-borne trade or
war pincer movement on Europe, one thrust towards the north, one
towards the northern Black Sea coast. To do that I'll have to find
Semitic or similar counterparts for all the Latin <ca-> words. As you
can imagine, my head will be closed for reconstruction for a few
weeks.
As for the neccessity of assuming those loans: It seems to me that
Schrijver's "language of bird names" is identical to Krahe's "Old
European". The vowel distribution, the absence of e/o ablaut (and /e/
and /o/ in general, the overrepresentation of /a/ and initial /a/ in
particular, and Krahe's observation (I learn from Abdullah) that the
initial /a/ of Old European are detachable like those of
Schrijver's "language of bird names". In other words, it seems loans
must have taken place from Old European (the semantic assemblage is:
lark, blackbird, sulphur, copper, axe, stone/hammer; nice fit, I'd
say). Now what looks promising for alternative 2) is that Møller's
first few pages are filled with IE/Sem. correspondences with
initial /a/ (don't check in the library, I've borrowed all three
books ;-) ).
Note that the *(H-)bh/p-r/l- root among other thing is about mouths
of rivers, cf. Welsh <aber-> in place names (q-Celtic <inver-> I seem
to recall.
Torsten