[tied] Re: -leben/-lev/-löv and -ung-

>
> <<<By assuming that *was-, *wos- was not a Germanic root but
> belonged to a substrate that was common to the present Germanic-
> speaking and French-speaking areas, and that *wos- therefore was
> loaned into French early enough that it was subject to the rules
> /o/ > /ö/, cf. Latin <coda> > French <queue>.
>
> That's a lot of speculation...
> ========
> A.F
>
> Why should this root *was *wos not be PIE *H_w_-s "empty, waste,
> vain" ?

The alternating vowel lengths in the variants Proto-PGermanic
*was-/*wa:s- -> PGermanic *was-/*wo:s- can be explained as arising
from loan from a language where vowel length didn't matter.

> I really cannot see why it should be a substrate !?
> And the most obvious substrate for French is Gaulish : *wos > vas-
> as is vassal from wo-sta-los < upo-sta-los.
> Torsten : you are not helping your "vasconic" hypothesis with such
> data.

The Vasconic/Old European hypothesis isn't mine, it's Vennemann's. In
that framework he derives these words from Basque baso. But I admit
that *upo-sta- > Celtic *wast-, which I was aware of, borrowed into
Proto-Proto-Germanic as *was-/*wa:s- > Proto-Germanic *was/*wo:s-, is
a better candidate for the origin, since it's derivable in that
language. At the same time we get a candidate for the Romance *bass-
"low".


Torsten