Re: [tied] Re: Convergence in the formation of IE subgroups

----- Original Message -----

From: Piotr Gasiorowski

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 2:31 PM

Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Convergence in the formatin of IE subgroups

On 2006-05-11 17:57, Patrick Ryan wrote:

> Moscati (p. 132) in his _The Comparative Grammar of Semitic
> Languages_, writes:
>     
> "This last type represents in essence the conjugation of a noun and
> may constitute a verbal adjective (e.g. damiq "he is good", balTâku
> "I am alive") as well as a substantive (e.g. zikarâku "I am a man",
> from zikaru "man")."

I'm aware of the existence of denominative verbs, but they are just that
-- denominative, not primary, i.e. they presuppose an underlying noun. A
verb meaning 'to be a dog' must be derived from a pre-existing term for
'dog'. In your posting you derive 'dog' from 'to be a dog'. This is
putting the cart before the horse, or making the tail wag the dog.

 

***

Patrick:

 

That is a complete misrepresentation of what I am asserting.

 

I am claiming that, in an ancestral language to PIE, *KHE meant 'dog' but that, by the time PIE was developing, no *CV root was permitted (with very few exceptions like *me), and that only *k^é?Ø or *k^éhØ (both verbs) was available as a basis on which to form further semantic extensions, in this case, -*w, meaning 'wag'.

 

In my posting, I derive 'dog' from 'wag' NOT 'to be a dog'.

 

***

> Unless it be maintained that *k^wón- is borrowed (not likely at
> all!), it has to have been constructed from an earlier root; and
> 'wag' seems to me to be a very likely source (though 'gray one' is
> not unreasonable but unacceptably vague). Words do not spring like
> Athena from Zeus' forehead.

If the 'dog' word has an internal etymology within PIE, it _may_ be a
substantivised participle: *k^éw-o:n(t-) vel sim. --> *k^w-ó:n (the *t
perhaps survived in some derivatives, esp. Gmc. *xunda- < *k^wn.t-ó-),
more or less similarly to *h1d-ónt- from pres. part. *h1éd-ont-. This
would in fact explain "the curious incident of the dog", which shows an
o-grade in the strong cases despite being otherwise a typical mobile
noun with no e-grade anywhere (gen. *k^un-ós, etc.). The meaning of the
underlying root is unknown. The 'wagger' thing doesn't strike me as
plausible at all. Do you know of any language in which dogs (or breeds
thereof) are called waggers? Why not 'barker', 'guardian', 'shepherd',
'hunter' or anything similar? One should demonstrate, in the first
place, that there is a root with a matching meaning that could be
reflected as *k^w- in the zero grade.

Piotr

***

Patrick:

 

So, a "substantivised participle" with an underlying "unknown" meaning? I am afraid I can hardly regard this as particularly helpful. How common is it for participles to be formed from nouns? Are you claiming that *k^wón- is also some kind of verbal root?

 

The -*tó is a nominal formant referring to a grouping (of dogs), shading off into a feminine in Nostratic, seen with collective -*Ha in PIE -*ta:.

 

It appears to me that Nostratic would be one such language where dogs are characterized as 'waggers' (cf. OS' HS *küHen, 'dog').

 

*ger-, 'growl', is often thought to be the basis for English 'cur'. 'growler, wagger'? Who can say why such choices were made?

As for zero-grade *k^w, does *k^eHw- not qualify?

 

***