Re: PNS

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

>
> 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-.

That's a possibility. Would hu:s, cot, Est. kodu "home" fit in
there?

> >> 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

Unattested is a strong term in light of the presence of names,
etnonyms, toponyms, etc


(about which all sorts of unfalsifiable claims can be made),

So far the number of assumed substrate languages has been kept
down to under half a dozen, about some of which claims have
been made (eg. the presence of pre-nasalized stops) which have
held up under new discoveries.

> so naturally there are limits to what it can explain. It can't
> account for dialectal duff- or dubb- (in Scandinavian).

And who would want to do that anyway?

> 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).

In what sense ad hoc? And I don't think that decision will help you
avoid accusations of something else.

> 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.


> >> 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".

These are names of Chatti: Arpus, Flanallus, Lives, Ramis,
Gandestrius or Adgandestrius, Catu- or Actu-merus and Ucro-mirus.
That's not Germanic. These people must have changed their language
when the Germani arrived. If they gave up every word of that
language in the process, they left no substrate words in Germanic.
Otherwise they did.


Torsten