From: Lisa
Message: 39215
Date: 2005-07-13
>!!!!!
> I'm afraid Vennemann beat me to it in this case; he derives
> German 'Adel' "nobility" from Semitic.
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...> wrote:
> At 6:20:56 PM on Monday, July 11, 2005, Lisa wrote:
>
> > So am I right in thinking it's substrate in PGmc?
>
> Not necessarily; Torsten is uncommonly quick to see
> substrate elements in Germanic.
I'm not sure if I was clear: I meant, taken from a 'native' language
in northern Europe, rather than descended from IE. Not carried over
from NW Arabia. Unless you mean to say the IE came from PSem?(!)
> > Ah. I wasn't [/ still am not =P ] sure if ON au always
> > came from PGmc au or o:.
>
> From *au; PGmc *o: remains o: in stressed syllables.
Thank you.
> >> 1. Proto-Germanic *d and *ð are the same phoneme.
>
> > Allophones of a phoneme, you mean?
>
> Different conventions for writing the same PGmc phoneme; *ð
> is preferable, but *d is easier (and was much easier in the
> days of typewriters).
I see. So you would say it was an oversight on the author's part that
he had written both, in different places?
> > And why such a disconnect from 'noble' to 'inherited
> > property'?
>
> According to OED2, the original signification of the 'noble'
> word seems to have been 'race, ancestry', whence in WGmc
> 'distinguished race, good family, nobility'; 'ancestral
> land, patrimony' goes nicely with 'race, ancestry'.
I still can't convince myself they're so connected, but I believe you. ;)
> > I don't think I caught the reason for the -[V]l in the one
> > version of the word/noun. Could you explain?
>
> Watkins thinks that it represents PIE *al- (which I assume
> is *H2el-) 'to nourish' but notes that *at-al- 'race,
> family' was already a compound in PIE.
Interesting. I guess I still have two questions:
- Why the voicing in some dialects/languages, and why the non-voicing
in others?
- Why does each (just about) dialect/language have two words: one
with the noun, and one with the noun + *al? In each language, both
versions seem to have the same meaning, which seems superfluous.
Could it be, as mentioned, that they were originally not the same word?
- I take it you would say *auðaz is inaccurate and *atal is better, at
least for the one version? (And o:ðaz or something similar did not
exist?)
Sorry for my copius questions, and thank you once again.