Re: swallow vs. nighingale

----- Original Message -----
From: tgpedersen
To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 11:40 PM
Subject: [tied] Re: swallow vs. nighingale




>> The subject here is birds names. Because they are words with unclear
>> word-formation structure as a rule, this is why there is so much
>> irregularities in their development.

> Why is their formation unclear, as opposed to the non-birdsnames of
> the same languages, if they are not loans?

Birds name are, as a rule, "simple" (for example, in discussed terms for
"swallow" you cannot find the word-formation base in Latin, in Greek, in
English, and finally in Polish ("jasko'l/ka") as well. Naturally, there also
exist "partially clear" terms like "nightingale" (relation to "night"), or
even completely clear, like "blackbird". But they are not our subject (in
"nightingale" we discuss only about "-gale").

But there is a mistake in your question: that (some, most of) birds names
are unclear, does not mean that all other terms are clear and that there is
any opposition here. That is why I have mentioned also "ore" and "sulphur"
in my post.


>> As for me, there is nothing strange in it.

> And to me, there is nothing strange in borrowing from a substrate
> language.

But you are right! There is nothing strange in it, or precisely speaking,
there would be nothing strange, if you could prove that these terms CANNOT
be inherited. The best way would be to show an attested source of the
borrowing. Presence of fleeting a- itself proves nothing.

Just let's be consequent. Italian term for swallow is róndine. We believe
that it has developped from Latin hirundinem which regularly should yield
**eróndine. What happened to the initial *e-? Should we believe that
"róndine" a substrate word because it lost the initial vowel?

Once again, we (as if) should believe that, let's say Latin merula and
Germanic *amVsla are borrowings because of the unstable a-. Of course, we
should, but only if we believe that also Old French aronde and Italian
rondine are borrowings! (Borrowings mean no Latin source.) Just because of
the unstable a-.

>> And, as a consequence,

> As a consequence of your claim the bird names are prone to being
> irregular you see nothing strange in them being irregular?

Yes, I see nothing strange in it. Why Polish term for "skylark" is
"skowronek" while Russian "z^avoronok"? Should I suppose that they are
borrowings from substrate (which substrate, by the way?) only because this
highly irregular equivalents "sko-" ~ "z^a-"?

A short "leap aside", if you please. I perfectly know that this is a list on
IE, not Nostratic, but I only want to show several examples of irregular
development of initial groups which is the subject here. This irregular
development is documented well in Altaic, and especially in Mongolian. Only
some examples:
u ~ 0: Mongolian usu - Turkish su (< sub) "water" (cf. also Buriat dialectal
(so: Mongolian) hub ~ sub "river..." (adjective))
g ~ 0: Mongolian guc^ "30", gurban "3" - Turkish üç "3"
b ~ 0: Mongolian ulaan "light red" - Russian borrowed (from unidentified
source) bulanyj "light red"
ö ~ 0: Buriat ödör "day" - dialectal dör
ü ~ 0: Buriat üsöön "scarce in number" - Mongolian cöön (the same)
etc.

There exist much more such examples. Naturally such disappearings of initial
sounds are not regular in any of cited languages. They only happen in some,
particular words, and - to tell the truth - their reason is unknown. This is
not the right place to discuss it in details, and I do not want to do it.
But the question is simple: should we believe that Mongolians and Turks
borrowed words for "water" from "water substrate"?

I believe that this is not the simplest solution. And the same I believe
that Italian rondine (yes, let's go back to our IE-an yard) is not borrowed
from substrate but developped irregularly from Latin hirundinem. The same
reason causes that I cannot just believe that Latin merula and Gmc. amVsl-
are borrowings (which does NOT mean that I reject such a possibility!).

>> I see virtually no reason to suppose that "a bird language", a
>> postulated source for many bird names in western Indo-European
>> languages, ever existed.

> Obviously you don't.

No evidence = no reason. Irregularities are no evidence, as you can see now
(I hope).


>> Of course it might have existed - but we could not prove it then.
>> The observed irregularities are too weak evidence,

> But you just ruled out the irregularities as evidence by claiming they
> were caused by something else? How can you then consider using them as
> evidence?

They are not evidence. Exactly! Irregularities are not evidence, so only
because of their presence no one should believe in borrowings from
substrate.

>> and they all may be due to development of inherited vocabulary,

> Which is especially irregular for birds' names?

No. I did not say so. Even from my post you may have learnt that names for
"ore" and for "sulphur" developped, or may have developped irregularly.

>> or due to borrowing wandering words from various sources.

> So the birds' names are either regularly irregular, or borrowed from
> several sources, but under no circumstances borrowed from just one
> language, because we can't prove that?

I didn't say so either, it's only your wrong interpretation. I repeat: the
presence of irregularities (like the fleeting initial a-, like l ~ r, like
dw ~ nd etc.) is not evidence of borrowing of anything. No evidence that a
thing exists does not mean evidence that this thing does not exist. I
thought it is obvious for everyone. And you, are not you convinced?

Grzegorz J.



___________________________________________________________
Inbox full of spam? Get leading spam protection and 1GB storage with All New Yahoo! Mail. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html