From: tgpedersen
Message: 39225
Date: 2005-07-14
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>wrote:
> >wrote:
> > 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@...>
> > At 6:20:56 PM on Monday, July 11, 2005, Lisa wrote:language
> >
> > > 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'
> in northern Europe, rather than descended from IE. Not carriedover
> from NW Arabia. Unless you mean to say the IE came from PSem?(!)Vennemann believes in the existence of 'Atlantic', a Semitic
>you. ;)
> > > 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
>voicing
> > > 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-
> in others?That *-al- is causing trouble in Latin too.
>
> - 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.
>