Re: Scientist's etymology vs. scientific etymology

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@...> wrote:

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> >
> > > > In the framework of this theory the direction of loan could
> > > > very well be the opposite; it just predicts that, that from
> > > > prehistoric times there are Vasconic loanwords in Latin. These
> > > > are, it must be said, only detectable as such in the fortunate
> > > > case in which they in spite of three thousand years of further
> > > > development of both languages can be explained from the
> > > > present Basque. Latin 'ca:seus' "cheese" is such a loanword.'
> > >
> > > [end of citation]
> > >
> > > No it is not, since intervocalic -s- was rhotacized in the 4th
> > > cent. BCE in Latin. Like <balteus>, <clipeus>, <puteus>, and
> > > several others, <ca:seus> probably comes from Sabine (or the
> > > "rustic" Sabino-Latin dialect) after the rhotacism. Since
> > > Sabine was a P-Italic language, an inherited reflex of
> > > *kwa:t(h)- (better *kweH2tH2-) should have begun with /p/.
> >
> > I think you are confusing PIE *kw- with PIE *kW-. But Slavic
> > kvasU- points to *kWw- which really doesn't make much sense
> > either. I think we must give up the hope of a direct descent.
>
> I used to write *kW, but I am no longer convinced that anything is
> gained by distinguishing *kW from *kw in PIE, as long as we
> recognize that *u and *w were distinct phonemes. We already know
> that 'cheese' is a Wanderwort; hopefully we can sort out the
> details.
>
> > > Sabine itself probably borrowed the word from an IE language
> > > which reduced */kw/ to /k/.
> >
> > Why not dump Sabine altogether then?
>
> Some of the other Latin words in -eus are likely to be from Sabine.
> The alternation between <clipeus> and <clupeus> suggests that the
> root-vowel in the source language had raised [u] to [ü], and this
> was being unrounded to [i]. As we know, this happened independently
> with Greek upsilon, and more importantly, we find it in Umbrian
> <pir> 'fire' and other words.

That reminded me of something.
Hans Kuhn: Das letzte Indogermanisch, p. 19
'In Latin /u/ in the position between /l/ and /b/ or /p/ has partly
become /i/ (libet beside lubet, clipeus beside clupeus etc). This mix
is documented early and probably arrived with language in Italy. This
since we have en exact correspondence in our river name Lippe, which
the Romans only knew as Lupia (et sim.). But no Germanic nor German
sound law can explain how that became Lippe (first documented as Lippa
in the Geographer of Ravenna). But also the city of Lecce in
Calabria - supposedly occupied by Illyrians - was called Lupiae or
Lupia in antiquity, but seems early also to have been written Lipia
vel sim., such as the present form presupposes. It is thus an old
Western IE sound transition, and we can this time establish it in the
Nordwestblock. Perhaps the river was already then in its lower course,
where the Romans became acquainted with it, Lupia, above the Borken
boundary, which crosses it, however Lipia.'

This after a paragraph, where he documents (*kW >) k/p confusion in
German/Low German, quote:
'kriechen and LG krupen,
streichen and streifen,
tauchen and taufen,
nd. Siek und Siepen "wet depression in terrain',
engl. shrink and HG schrumpfen,
Strunk and Strumpf,
Goth. *auhns/OSw. ugn and Germ. Ofen,
ON ylgr "female Wolf" and ulfr "Wolf"
Germ. leihen and bleiben
and more'

and he compares Gmc. *kak-/ko:k- "cake" with *kwekw- <- *pekw-.

In all, if he's right, the Sabellian tribes could have brought their
version of ca:seus all the way from Central Europe. Which means we
could argue from West Venetic/NWBlock/West Urnfield.

> Umbrian and Sabine also share the
> reduction of initial *dw- to d- (which Oscan keeps, but Latin
> labializes to b-). In fact, this suggests another possible scenario
> for <ca:seus>. If the word was borrowed in the form *kwa:s- after
> the Sabine conversion of inherited *kw- to p- (which occurred no
> later than the early 7th cent. BCE) and before the reduction of *dw-
> to d-, conceivably this borrowed *kw- was also reduced to k- before
> Latin borrowed the word (no earlier than the mid-4th cent. to avoid
> rhotacism). But for the moment I prefer what I proposed earlier.

Here's why I think we get so many explanations of these words as
Sabine etc in Roman authors. I think the dichotomy in Latin between
'normal' Latin and the layer of 'mots populaires' comprising at least
those in b- and -a- goes back to the dichotomy between Patricians and
Plebeians which were of different ethnic origin. we know alreadsy one
social shibboleth which I think goes back to that too: /au/ vs. /o/.
By classical times, this conflict was history, which is why the only
association Roman writers get to these words is to the various rustic
dialects they knew in those areas where the two classes had come from.

> > If the ancestor ultimately is PIE *kwat-, it's difficult to argue
> > that it had -s- at the time of the Latin rhotacization. It might
> > have been
> > *kwat-jo- > *kwatso- > *katso- > *ka:syo- cf. caussa > causa
> > without rhotacization. Note also unusual metathesis -tz- <> -zt-
> > in Basque.

Cf. Da. kvæste, Du. kwetsen "injure"

> You do have a point, in that *ca:sseus would have avoided rhotacism,
> with subsequent reduction of the geminate after the long vowel.

Yes, if you want to strictly believe that reduction took place not
before Latin. I assumed loss of -t- *-ats- > *-a:s- with compensatory
lengthening of the vowel, but of course that's ad hoc, until further.

> But you need both a geminate -ss- and a long -a:- for that. Heck, my
> proposal was speculative anyway; you can just as easily say that the
> source language had *kwa:t-je-jo- > *k(w)a:ssejo- or the like, and
> then you can bypass Sabine.
>


>
> At any rate I do not consider the <ca:seus> matter settled, and I
> hope my previous criticism of Vennemann's position is not taken
> personally by anyone here.

That would be difficult since none of us is Vennemann.


Torsten