Re: Strange words out of place

--- tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh
> <gknysh@...> wrote:
> >
> > --- tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
> >
> > etc etc. Note: There aren't any -b- forms in his
> material from
> > Poland and Germany. They all have -p-. Which means
> the first
> > Germanic sound shift, the Grimm shift, wherever it
> took place, it
> > wasn't here (are you listening, George?)
> >
> > GK: Since I'm not much of a linguist, I don't
> > understand your point. If the Grimm shift means a
> > substitution of "p" for "b", how does the presence
> of
> > "p" and the absence of "b" argue against its
> having occurred?
> >
>
> I left out one premise, the one Kuhn also uses: PIE
> *b was very rare,
> almost non-existent. Therefore words in Germanic and
> toponyms in its
> present area with /p/ almost certainly don't have a
> direct PIE
> pedigree, but must have some other source, IE or
> non-IE.

****GK: Assuming this for the sake of argument, it
doesn't really answer my question, since the Grimm
shift is not involved with PIE but with whatever the
Germanic form was before it occurred. Hence the point
you made above is meaningless in this context.****

>
> Further, the word seems to belong to a *wip-,
> *wimp-, *wik-, *wik-
> family of appellatives (non-toponyms), and that
> characterizes it/them
> as belonging to a substrate language in NWEurope,
> Schrijver's
> 'language of geminates' (check archives).

****GK: That's closer,but still not particularly
relevant. This "substrate" could have been absorbed
well before the Grimm shift.If not, why not?****

>
> This is non-standard stuff (yet), so it will have to
> stand on the
> strength of the argument alone.

****GK: What argument?****

>
>
> Torsten
>
>
>

____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ