From: jouppe
Message: 53953
Date: 2008-02-22
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> --- 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
>