[tied] Re: Allofamy, allofams

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

>
> On 2006-07-06 11:29, tgpedersen wrote:
>
> > If these three glosses existed in Germanic when Verner applied,

that

> > is correct. But ex hypothese (meo) they are allofams of something
> > else, thus potentially loans into Proto-Germanic. Eg. from a

language

> > which had variation in finals *-Vn,x-/*-Vn,g- -> *-V:-/*-Vn,-,

such

> > as many Sino-Tibetan languages do. Now suppose "go" was borrowed

in

> > the form *ga:-/*gan,- but "hang" (originally the same word)
> > and "catch" were borrowed in the earlier form *hanx-/*han,- and
> > *fanx-/*fan,- (before Grimm, obviously), we'd get the development

you

> > described.
>
> How come that the distribution of *x ~ *g in the forms of these

words is

> the same as in other strong verbs affected by Verner's Law -- i.e.
> conditioned by the location of pre-Germanic accent?

Really? -x in the pret. sg., -ng- in the pl.?

>And 'hang' at least
> has impeccable cognates abroad, including Hitt. ka:nki/kankanzi

Could be from *gank-.

>and Skt. s'aNkate.

Impeccable? What's that /k/ doing there?

> I don't want to argue about the ultimate origin of this word,
> but it was surely *k^onk- at a certain point

Still assuming it was present in PIE.

>and must have been *kank- in pre-Germanic before the first stage of
>Grimm's Law. If it's a loan, it's still _much_ older than Proto-
>Germanic.

Why not separate loans?

>Incidentally, there was no *x (*h) or *f in pre-Germanic, so
>*fanx- can't have been borrowed in this form.

That's what was meant by my "before Grimm, obviously".


Torsten