Re: Not "catching the wind " , or, what ARE we discussing? Was (Q

From: Piotr Gasiorowski
Message: 56443
Date: 2008-04-02

On 2008-04-02 20:52, tgpedersen wrote:

> Nice try. Kluge does not belong there. Firstly, it's logically
> detachable from Grimm/Verner,

It isn't, in my opinion, as it happened in the middle of the other
shifts and interacted with them. But of course I'm aware that Kluge's
Law (or rather the change*s* traditionally so labelled) is still
regarded as controversial, so if you leave it out, I don't mind. For me,
GL + VL entail Kluge's Law anyway.

> secondly, I hear that it occurs in Celtic too,

Well, the spirantisation of the voiced aspirates (one of the initial
stages of GL took place also in Proto-Italic, and changes highly
reminiscent of GL took place in Proto-Armenian. That's why I emphasised
the significance of the whole _complex_ of ordered changes, which is
uniquely Gwermanic.

> and thirdly, Kuhn was only able to find half a dozen
> geminates in the Gothic Bible, so Kluge, or substrate from a
> geminating language didn't happen in East Germanic.

No, it only shows how poorly documented East Germanic is. What we have
is practically one text, translated from a foreign language and with a
very restricted lexical register. Still, it does contain _some_ words
that may display Kluge's Law; even <atta> (characteristically, a nasal
stem) is one of them.