On 2006-09-20 21:26, tgpedersen wrote:
> Some of the explanations I've seen look like the authors did
> some nasal assimilation themselves.
> Please explain hatt-, ho:d-, Latin cassis?
Here's a thought experiment: root *k(^)eht- 'cover, shelter' (with any
of the three laryngeals). The thematic O-derivatives *koht-ó-s and
*koht-áh2 account for Gmc. *xo:ðaz and *xo:ðo:. Nil-grade derivatives
are represented by *k&t-tí-s > Lat. cassis, *k&t-inó- > OE heden, OIc.
heðinn, and *k&t-nó- > Gmc. *xatta- ~ *xattu-.
>> See, in particular, Paul Hopper's "Remarks" and Jens Rasmussen's
>> "Erwiderung auf Paul J. Hoppers 'Remarks'" in Theo Vennemann
>> (ed.), 1989, _The New Sound of Indo-European: Essays in
>> Phonological Reconstruction_, Berlin/New York.
>
> That's some powerful rule. Can it also explain the simultaneous
> existence of the roots duB-, duff-, dubb-, dup-, dupp- and dump-?
> Faroese eta [e:hta] 'eat', opin [o:hpin] 'open'? Northumbrian
> eatta? Old High German ezzan, offan?
It isn't nearly so powerful as the assumption of unattested substrates
(about which all sorts of unfalsifiable claims can be made), so
naturally there are limits to what it can explain. It can't account for
dialectal duff- or dubb- (in Scandinavian). It doesn't explain
preaspiration in Faroese either. I also prefer to leave aside some
instances of unexpected gemination in OHG and Northumbrian to avoid
accusations of applying Kluge's Law ad hoc (even if they might be
explained with its help).
Kluge's Law _can_ explain the alternation between *B in the verb root
*ðeuB-/*ðu:B- 'dive' and the *-pp- in *ðuppa- (cf. MHG topf) 'something
deep' (the *-nó- derivative is well attested outside Germanic). If
Germanic *ðeupa- 'deep' owes its *p to the influence of *ðuppa-, we can
account for the absence of Winterian effects in Balto-Slavic *dubna-,
Slavic *dUbrI and Lith. dubus by reconstructing the PIE root as *dHeubH-
(as Derksen does) rather than *dHeub-. It's perhaps possible to explain
the *ðump- forms as well as the result of metathesis that took place
before nasal assimilation, when the reflex of *dHubH-no- was still
*ðupna-. The origin of the variation *uf-/*uBa-/*uppa- --> secondary
*upa- (above, upp, offan, open) may be similar, but involving PIE *p, as
demonstrated by external cognates.
>> I see no reason at all to regard the verb stem *likko:-
>> (OHG leccho:n etc.) as foreign in Germanic.
>
> Miguel didn't either. It occurs as one of the very few geminates
> in early texts, where it is obviously out of place, see below.
>
>
>> The verb *leig^H-, originally a root formation (*léig^H-ti,
>> *lig^H-énti) had derivatives with secondary nasal suffixes
>> in several groups (Slavic *lIz-noN-ti, Gk. likH-neú-o:
>> 'taste'); *lig^H-náh2- fits that pattern very nicely.
> Why would one need a rule that 'explains' only the words sceatt,
> scucca, upp, luttil and likkon in the earliest texts, words which
> have no sensible IE etymology with or without gemination? If this
> rule is so successful, how come there are so few examples of it
> in those texts?
Just for the record, I've just cited a sensible etymology of *likko:n,
which also occurs without gemination (Goth. 3pl. pret. bilaigodedun
contains the caus./iter. *loig^H-éje/o-). To be sure, _Beowulf_ is not a
particularly early document (in the context of Old English), but of
course it's true that few words with Klugean gemination are found in
heroic poetry, which was extremely selective in its choice of
vocabulary. Accented *-nV- after a stop could be found in suffixed
verbs, old verbal adjectives in *-nó- (I think sceatt < *skattaz belongs
here) or other similar formations. Their stylistic value would have been
neutral and we can expect them to pop up in all kinds of written
sources. On the other hand we have nouns derived from the oblique forms
of nasal stems (which often had a colloquial ring, as nasal stems were
commonly employed as diminutives). Words of this latter category were
less suitable for use in high poetry, hence their absence (with
exceptions like <scucca>). Then we have words which can't be directly
explained by Kluge's Law or, for that matter, any regular phonetic
process (e.g. hypocoristically distorted words with gemination, like
frocga). These were definitely low-register items. Note that
"low-register" doesn't automatically equal "substratal".
Piotr