Re: Scientist's etymology vs. scientific etymology

At 5:16:49 PM on Thursday, June 12, 2008, tgpedersen wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> <BMScott@...> wrote:

>> At 1:38:41 PM on Thursday, June 12, 2008, tgpedersen wrote:

>>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
>>> <BMScott@> wrote:

>>>> At 4:47:34 AM on Thursday, June 12, 2008, tgpedersen wrote:

>>>>> As for couch grass, that must be related to a different
>>>>> root eg. *gWih3w- "live" (cf. Da. 'kvikgræs' "couch
>>>>> grass", or something else, is 'couch' related?)

>>>> This <couch> is. Couch grass is also quitch grass, and
>>>> <quitch> directly continues OE <cwice>; <couch> seems
>>>> originally to have represented /kutS/, so the development
>>>> must have been something like /wi/ > /uj/ > /u/. It's also
>>>> quick grass, twitch (with the opposite development from that
>>>> seen in German quer < OHG twerh), and in the U.S. quack
>>>> grass.

>>> I've seen that development recently in a bid to explain
>>> river Dvina -> German Düna; supposedly LG has swester ->
>>> süster too (Du. zuster, Sw. syster, Da. søster), I thought
>>> myself of Dutch zoet /zu:t/, LG soet /sö:t/, German süss,
>>> Sw söt, Da. sød "sweet". But those distribution 1) don't
>>> match geographically with each other, 2) or with any other
>>> known major.

>> So? Stress shift in diphthongs is hardly an unusual
>> occurrence.

> I didn't claim that shift in diphthongs is an unusual
> occurrence. Perhaps you should read the paragraph again.

Perhaps you should explain yourself more clearly: I now have
no idea what point you were trying to make with that
paragraph.

>>> Further, if there were any truth to this supposed
>>> Inguaeonic *k > ts,

>> What on earth are you talking about? There is no *k > ts
>> in quitch > twitch (or anywhere else in the quoted post).

> I didn't claim that either. I think you might have missed
> this paragraph:

> 'Die Formen mit -k- und -ts-, -tsch-, -ss- gehören über
> "ingwäonische" Sibilierung des -k- zusammen, trotz A.
> Lasch, Palatales 'k' 278 A. 4, wonach sich nd. quitz nicht
> sicher auf -k- zurückführen lasse.'

Since you included none of that long quotation in your
response to me, I assumed that you *were* responding to me,
so of course I did not look back and wade through the
quotation to see whether something there might possibly be
relevant to your comment.

Brian