Re: swallow vs. nightingale

From: fournet.arnaud
Message: 50980
Date: 2007-12-22

 
----- Original Message -----
From: tgpedersen
To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007 7:03 PM
Subject: [tied] Re: swallow vs. nightingale

Torsten :
Those forms that came as loans would bypass that process.
=========
Arnaud
What about examples to substantiate this assertion ?
 
==============================
Arnaud (old)
> Cf. the word "water, rain" *NG-u-t?-
> Chinese *NG-u-t?-a "rain" (BeiJing yu3)
> PIE H2w_t?-
> But Semitic has *m_t?- "rain"
> suggesting that this #m- could be from *NGw
> (with loss of velar feature > m and NG-u- reinterpreted as NGw-)
Torsten (old) :
Pokorny:
mad-, naß, triefen; auch von Fett triefen, vollsaftig, fett, gemästet;
mad-do-, Mästung'.
=======================
Arnaud (New)
I suppose it is Pokorny 699 m_H2-
LAtin mân-âre, mâdêo : "flow ; be wet" (a is long)
It doesn't have the same structure : m_H2 versus m_t? (or ngw_t?).
 
I first didn't know what nass was doing here. (But I understood later on)
=========================
Torsten :
Møller:
"2 *m- 'Wasser'
(< voridg.-semit. -hamit. A-m-, vgl. berberisch Plur. aman 'Wasser'),
========
ARnaud (new) :
The exact underlying form is *m_? (glottal stop).
Berber is ama:n with long â.
The root for proto-berber is also *m_?
#a- is not part of the root but the article. -n is plural.
============
+ Laryngal idg. reduz. ma:-,
nordwesteurop. mit r-Suffix in lat. mare  ETc
 
Arnaud : obvious cognates between PIE and PAA.
==================
= semit. m- in
hebr. màyim
aram. màyin Pl. Wasser'
syr. mayå,
assyr. *mu:, Plur. me: 'Wasser',
arab. + y-, w- oder A- dehnstufig ma:`un 'Wasser'
(vgl. Nöldeke Neue Beitr. 166 ff.);
======
Arnaud (new) :
Arabic has mâ? with glottal stop.
(Arabic -â# is possible without glottal stop
therefore this glottal stop is relevant).
Egyptian m_?_r = Coptic mêre "abyss" < *mu?-ra-
Semitic does not distinguish ?y y? y and ?w w? w.
(Tchadic does)
So the only form that is relevant is Arabic mâ?
 
==========
Torsten :
which is why the /n,W/ in a reconstructed *(a)n,W- "water" is nice: it
may produce m- and n- and w-.
======
Arnaud (new) :
It looks smart.
The major trouble is it fails to provide *m_?-
which obviously is the ground form for Berber, Egyptian, PIE, Arabic.
===========================
Pulleyblank reconstructs /n,W/ for Old Chinese, which is where I got
the idea.
Arnaud : I didn't read Pullyblank
but Cantonese ngo = "e-go" was enough for me
to reach the same conclusion.
========================
I usually don't prove things from 'probably'.
Torsten
 
Arnaud
I don't want to sound ironic
but some of the fetish ideas (like Vasconic or Euro-Semitic substrate)
are not only unproved but do not look "probable" at all.
But I will always welcome your advice, analysis and data.
 
==================