Re: Darkness

> > 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.

Here's the full quote:
d-ns- 'dicht', lat. densus,
< *d-ms- (< voridg. intr. D.ámas- = D.-m-+ s-, s. 1d-m-)
:
idg. t-ns-, ahd. dinstar 'finster', lat. tenebrae (< tensro-, -a:-)
< t-m-s-, idg. témos n., Abl. lat. temere (< voridg. intr. dámas-)
=
semit. d-m-s-, arab. damasa 'obscurae et densae fuerunt (tenebrae)',
s. t-m-s-.

So whatever you meant by that, it doesn't apply in this case.

>
> 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.

It is true that if you introduce unique rules in single cases you can
explain everything. That's why people avoid them.

> 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-.

And as the above shows, Møller derives his PIE *tensro- from
vorindogermanisch-semitisch, ie prePIESemitic *t-m-s- + -ro,
ie. < *temsro

> 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").

Read the book then.

> 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.

*dh- > *þ- > *f- is commonly accepted for Italic, and many of its
speakers were grown-ups. I can't remember if it's Kuhn or Vennemann
who posits an Italic-like *dh > þ, d > *d, *t > *t for some dialect on
the Rhine, from where it might have been picked up.


Torsten