---- Original Message ----
From: fournet.arnaud
To:
cybalist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 3:18 AM
Subject: [!! SPAM] Re: [tied] swallow vs. nighingale
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Grzegorz Jagodzinski
> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 2:45 AM
> Subject: Re: [tied] swallow vs. nighingale
>
>
>> 4. "Blackbird": if Germanic *a- in *amVsla- was from a laryngeal, it
>> would
>> be rather strange since Germanic, as a rule, has not preserved initial
>> laryngeals as vowels. But if the word is Semitic, and *a- was the
>> article,
>> which are its cognates in known Semitic languages?
>> ============
> A.F
> *a being the article is not the only possibility.
> You have the Form IV in verbs that allow C_C_C to become ?_C_C_C.
> This can be something like that in PIE waiting to be described
> properly
> ==================
I would not like to enter too deep into Semitic linguistic here, however:
1) Birds' names are not verbs. A prefix in such names cannot rather be a
causative marker, as nouns have not such a grammar category. What we may
expect, are cases (marked by endings in older Semitic languages, not by
prefixes) or article, marked by a prefix. There is a theory that both Arabic
al- and Hebrew haC- come from a demonstrative pronoun, reconstructed in this
theory as *s^aC (C = a consonant), with *s^ > h in Hebrew and *s^ > 0 in
Arabic due to frequency.
2) I have never stated that the structure ?_CC_C (with no vowel between C1
and C2) does not exist in Semitic. It certainly exists, but forms the
causative form of verbs. Btw, the prefix ?V- (V = a vowel) is also
reconstructed with irregular development from the previous *s^a- (with some
traces left in Semitic). As the sound *s^ (= Hebrew s^ while Arabic s) is
said to come from Proto-Afro-Asiatic *s, the original causative prefix in
PAA is believed to have been *sa-. Indeed, such a morpheme is attested
outside the Semitic branch.
Summarizing, the hypothesis that the a- : 0- variation in birds names
reflects presence and absence of the article in the Semitic substrate, has
two weak points:
1) the article was not a- but *s^aC rather,
2) the ?a- morpheme is known among verbs and has a "verbal" meaning
(causative); in addition it is reconstructed as *s^a- for earlier stages of
Semitic.
The hypothesis under question would be correct if the substrate was Hebrew
(having the haC- article) or another strictly related language
(Phoenician?). But in this instance we should rather talk about adstrate or
superstrate, enough late in addition. Probably too late to explain the
problem.
Naturally, there are only many other possible explanations. For example, the
article a- is present in North-West Caucassian. Maybe a NWC language was the
hypothetical substrate?
But we do not even know for sure that there existed any bird language at all
(I hope I have already shown it). So, are all the explanations anything more
than just speculations?
Grzegorz J.
___________________________________________________________
All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html