Re: Uralic Continuity Theory (was: Meaning of Aryan: now, "white peo

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "jouppe" <jouppe@...> wrote:

>
> About otsa and maha more below
>
> --- 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.

Germanic arrived in Scandinavia at some time in the last century BCE.
Udolph claims something similar. Actually one reason I believe that is
that Snorri Sturluson says so, but I am afraid to assert it aloud on
this list because it offends many people's sensibilities, which is
something we Danes are prone to do.

> 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

I understand. You are a believer in the Germanic Continuity Theory and
you don't want to discuss it. It's OK, we have other people like that
on this list.
It might interest you to know that researchers in Gothenburg (I saw
this on TV) have found a PC way of handling the many annoying
parallels between Semitic and IE, especially Germanic, which Vennemann
has poinyed: they point out the many parallels between the
Scandinavian Bronze Age culture and contemporaneous Mediterranean
cultures. There might have been eg. a Pheonician connection.

> - - - - - - - - -
> >
> > 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

You don't have to. Someone else did them for you. So no answer, then?

> - - - - - - - - - -
> > 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.

which is PPIE *a, preserved before and after -x- (h2). But something
else occurred to me: it should have had *k- as a loan in Fennic. Which
it doesn't, so post-PIE loan (post laryngel disappearan ce anyway. But
look at this:

DEO
"
kant, Sw, Nw, id. "edge", like German Kante borrowed through MLG
kant(e), MDu. cant from OFr. cant "corner, hook", from Lat. cantus
"iron rail" ... orig. of Gallic orig, corr. cant "wheel rim", Bret.
cant "circle"
"
cf. Kent.

The distribution indicates NWBlock, cf Low German Waterkant
"waterfront". Pre-IE substrate *kant- > PIE xant-?

> 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

Thank you. Actually, when I said those were the resources I had at
hand, I meant at hand at that late hour.

>
> I'm not sure about whether *mak- really has a genuine contentious *a
> or perhaps mh1k- in zero grade.

How would you pronounce that?

> Distribution is very skewed to the west so the material is scarce.

As a said: substrate.

> 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.

That's circular. There is nothing particularly Paleo-Germanic about
*anti-, whatever the pre-Finnivc reflex of it is.

> Parallells are ratsas 'rider'

Pokorny *reidho- has examples from Celtic, germanic, and, 'falls
hierher gehörig', Greek. How do you know it's not from a common
substrate in Celtic and Germanic?

> and vitsa 'willow twig', 'withe, birch'

Pokorny *wei-, *wei&-, on the other hand, is known all over the place,
with 7 different 'extensions'. Latin and Lithuanian have forms in
*wei-t-i- too. How do we know it's borrowed from Germanic?

> 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.

What parallels?

> 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