From: jouppe
Message: 53827
Date: 2008-02-20
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> I checked the supposed Germanic loanwords with what I have at hand
> (Dansk Etymologisk Ordbog is my only etymology text of Germanic ,
but
> it's usually reliable)
>
> otsa <= *antj- 'forhead'
> maha 'belly'
> The last one
> hartia 'shoulder' cf. obs. Danish h¿rde-, is obviously a late loan,
ie
> after Grimm, which took place some time in the last century BCE, so
> I'll leave that out (since by that time, by my chronology, the
> Germanic speakers would have arrived in Scandinavia).
- - - - - - - - -
You are right that hartia is the youngest. /h/ in the beginning as
well as /-ti-/ (as opposed to /-si/ < *-ti-) both tell the same
story. We are looking at a Proto-Norse borrowing. What I don't
understand is your migration theory. The so called scandinaian bronze
age culture would have been germanic already, but again I will state
this only once: I have no intention to debate migrations in lenght
Jouppe
- - - - - - - - -
>
> But wrt the two others, I have some questions:
>
> 1) How come M¸ller has found supposed cognates of both of them in
> Semitic?
>
- - - - - - - - - -
I pass on this one and leave this to others. I know semitic but I
don't hold these comparisons worth the effort.
Jouppe
- - - - - - - - - -
> 2) How come they are both reconstructed (in the mainstream) with
> contentious PIE -a- in the root, and have -a- in both Germanic and
Italic?
- - - - - - - - - -
*h2entiós does not have **a in the root. It is a colouring of the e-
grade.
Niels Åge Nielsen's Dansk Etymologisk Ordbog from 1966 is an
excellent adaptation of Pokorny to Scandinavian, actually it is my
favourite, a compactb and concise first recourse. But he does not use
laryngeal reconstructions (except a schwa where applicable). My
impression is also that he is very dependant on Pokorny in assessing
root cognates, which is OK if you know it. If you want an independent
second opinion order Kluge (Seebold) Etymologisches Wörterbuch der
deutschen Sprache. The 24. edition is from 2002 there might be newer
ones out. Also have a look at the Old Norse etymological database at
http://www.indo-european.nl/index2.html
I'm not sure about whether *mak- really has a genuine contentious *a
or perhaps mh1k- in zero grade. Distribution is very skewed to the
west so the material is scarce. Lith. has ma~kas, me~keris in Pokorny
Page(s): 698. There are plenty of people to help us here on this one.
Jouppe
- - - - - - - -
> 3) What is the evidence that these two words were borrowed from just
> Germanic and no other language?
- - - - - -
For otsa there is a very particular PreFinnic palatal reconstruction
*on'ããa (with palatal n and palatal geminated affricate). This sort
of reflex has been attested for a Paleo-Germanic (=Pre- or Early
Proto-) cluster -Dj- where D stands for any dental. Parallells are
ratsas 'rider' and vitsa 'willow twig', 'withe, birch' in the
lexicon. http://koti.welho.com/jschalin/lexiconie.htm. Even if
another original had this cluster gmc would have to be favoured
because the parallels are germanic. Semantics is also important, Old
Norse has a perfect fit.
Maha < *magan- is also post Grimms law because the substitution rule
is from fricative to fricative: parallells are saha 'saw' and laho.
The rule is for early post grimm, around AD may be, because once the
Finnic fricative had moved to [h] the substitute became /k/ again.
Jouppe
- - - - - - - -
>
> Torsten
>