Re: [tied] Darkness

From: Sean Whalen
Message: 47570
Date: 2007-02-23

--- tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> <BMScott@...> wrote:
> >
> > At 1:53:42 AM on Thursday, February 22, 2007, Sean
> Whalen
> > wrote:

> > > tem!rós
> > > temsrós
> > > temstrós
> > > etc
> > > þimstraz > finstraz 'dark'
> >
> > > with both forms existing (either due to
> metathesis of
> > > features or a child's form).
> >
> > > þimstraz
> > > þiwstraz
> > > þéoster, etc. OE
> >
> > *þiwstraz doesn't appear to account for WSax
> þíestre, þýstre
> > or OSax thiustri.

There are two (and more) words from the same root.

*t(e)m!n.ós 'dark' > *þimstraz > d/finstar,
þéoster/or; MIrish temen

*t(e)m!n.yós 'in the dark' > *þimstrijaz > þýstre,
thiustri; OIrish temnide

> Here is what Møller (Vergleichendes
> indogermanisch-semitisches
> Wörterbuch) makes of it:

> idg. t-ns-, ahd. dinstar 'finster', lat. tenebrae (<
> tensro-, -a:-)
> < t-m-s-, idg. témos n., Abl. lat. temere (< voridg.
> intr. dámas-)

There is a tendency I've noticed in some linguists
to believe a sound in a historic IE language (say /n/)
must go back to PIE *n. That is, they don't think
that any sound changes occurred, either because they
don't think of it, or believe that environment would
cause it, or some personal preference, or something I
can't imagine.

Relatedly, if there is a change bh>ph in some
language, they trace all instances of ph back to *bh
and refuse to consider that a certain environment may
have changed p>ph, or something similar.

If there is a unique dis/assimilation instead of a
demonstrable law that affects many words, they
seemingly will never believe in it no matter how it
simplifies matters.

In short, there is no *tensro-; *temebra:i
dissimilates > tenebrae. Dinstar gets its n from
analogy with finstar.

> =
> semit. d-m-s-, arab. damasa 'obscurae et densae
> fuerunt (tenebrae)',
> s. t-m-s-.

In my work to reconstruct all languages, I've
remained open to any two words being related somehow.
But that doesn't mean all words with similar forms and
meanings are related. To even consider that these
words are related to PIE I'd need to see sound changes
that are backed up by occurring in other cognates (or
some kind of chain of evidence, or a preponderance of
"coincidence").

Of course, since within IE I reconstruct a lateral
fricative, not s, in this root that changes the
evidence that would sway me.

> The variant *þim-/*fim- I haven't seem
> before, but cf. Goth. þliuhan, Germ. fliehen.

I'm not saying *þimstraz > *finstraz is from a
regular rule; most likely it's a childish
pronunciation that was accepted into adult speech.




____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss an email again!
Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/