Re: [tied] Germanic geminates

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
wrote:

>
> On 2006-03-09 14:05, tgpedersen wrote:
>
> > Kuhn ascribes those Germanic words with geminates (especially

those

> > where geminate alternates with single consonant) to the
> > Nordwestblock substrate. He also questions Kluge's law. Note

that

> > many of them have no good cognates outside of Germanic.
>
> But Kluge's Law is based rather safely on examples that clearly

belong

> to inherited vocabulary and which make no sense without it.

Suffice it

> to mention such showcase items as *lig^H-náh2- > *likko:- 'lick'

or

> *doik^-nó- > *taikna- 'sign, token' (from *deik^- 'show). There is

no

> geminate in the latter case, since full nasal assimilation doesn't
> operate after long vowels and diphthongs, but the first stage of

Kluge's

> Law (interacting with GV and VL and changing their output) is well
> visible there. If one doesn't accept Kluge's Law, one is left to
> desperate ad hoc solutions like Pokorny's "alternative form" of

the

> *deik^- root, *doig^- (supported only by Germanic examples!);

that's

> really no acceptable alternative for an explanation that assumes

nothing

> but regular development.
>

None of the above disproves a solution where words with geminates
are loans from the *IE* Nordwestblock (Kuhn actually proposed two
layers of Nordwestblock: one pre-IE, one subsequent, short-lived IE).


Torsten