Re: Sin once more

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

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Pokorny: '
> > > pe:(i)-, pi:- "weh tun, beschädigen, schmähen";
> > > pe:-mn. "Leid, Krankheit".
> > > Ai. pí:yati "schmäht, höhnt",
> > > pi:yú-, píya:ru- "höhnend, schmähend";
> > > gr. pe:~ma "Verderben, Leid",
> > > apé:mo:n "unbeschädigt; unschädlich",
> > > pe:-maíno: "stifte Unheil, richte zugrunde" (idg. *pe:-mn.),
> > > pé:sasthai: mémpsasthai Hes.,
> > > e:-panía "Mangel, Entbehrung";
> > > pé:ros, dor. pa:rós "verstümmelt, blind",
> > > á-pe:ros "unverstümmelt";
> > > lat. paene (pe:ne) "beinahe, fast; ganz und gar"
> > > (ursprüngl. Neutrum eines Adj. *pe:-ni-s "beschädigt,
> > > mangelhaft"),
> > > paenitet "es reut, tut leid",
> > > pe:nu:ria "Mangel"; von einem Partiz. *p&-tó-s "geschädigt"

stammt

> > > patior, -i:, passus sum "dulde, erdulde, leide";
> > > idg. pe:i- in got. faian "tadeln",
> > > pi:- in got. fijan, aisl. fja:, ags. fe:on, ahd.

fi:e:n "hassen",

> > > Partiz. Präs. in got. fijands, ahd. fi:a:nt usw. "Feind";
> > > mit gebrochener Reduplikation
> > > ai. pa:pá- "schlimm, böse";
> > > pa:pmán- m. "Unheil, Schaden, Leiden" erst nach dem vielleicht
> > > lallwortartigen pa:pá- für *pa:man- eingetreten;
> > > ai. pa:mán- bedeutet "eine Hautkrankheit, Krätze",
> > > pa:maná-, pa:mará- "krätzig', wie
> > > av. pa:man- "Krätze, Fläche, Trockenheit", wozu vermutlich
> > > lat. paemino:sus, pe:mino:sus "brüchig, rissig";
> > > ai. pa:pá- = arm. hivand- "krank" (Ernst Lewy).
> > > WP. II 8 f., WH. II 234 f., 264, 283.'
> >
> > Everything but the kitchen sink. Sometimes Pokorny does this.
> > Another example is his *pel-(1).
> >
> > > How about *pe:-ik- "something that hurts", later 'de-

sabellized'

> > > (cf. Osc scriftas, Umbrian screhto, but Latin script-), pe:ik-
>
> > > pekk-, thus Latin pecca: (old n.pl.)?
> >
> > "De-sabellization" or the like was invoked by Alessio to explain

L.

> > <adeps> 'soft fat' beside the expected <aleps> (which does occur,
> > but later). That is, <aleps> supposedly sounded like

a "Sabinized"

> > word and was "corrected" to <adeps>. This explanation fails,

since

> > actual Sabine, like South Picene and to a lesser extent
> > Paleo-Umbrian, tended to fortite -l- to -d-; with <adeps> we

likely

> > have an Old Sabine loanword (in sacrificial contexts) into

Latin.

> > It was the Sabino-Latin dialect which tended to lenite d- and -d-
> > to l- and -l-.
> >
> > Nor does "de-sabellization" work in your example, since no P-

Italic

> > language makes -ik- from -kk-. Umbrian <pesetom> is generally

held

> > to be written for *<peççetom>, as mentioned earlier. Oscan

retains

> > -kk-; see e.g. <akkatus> nom. pl. 'advocates', <Dekkieis> gen.

sg.

> > 'of Decius'. Thus, even if "de-sabellization" were a valid way

of

> > producing Latin forms, it could not yield *pecca from an earlier
> > *peika: (and no Italic language retains inherited long diphthongs
> > as such).
>
> I hadn't read Buck's §143 closely enough; it seems the rules in
> Umbrian are *-kt- > -ht-, but *-kVt- > -it-, eg *re:kte: > *re:hte:,
> but *weghe-to:d > -veitu. But he also, confusingly to me, wants to
> posit an intermediate stage *wekto:d with 'secondary -kt-'. Since

the

> internal rules of Umbrian were probably as opaque to the average

Roman

> as they are to me, I don't think 'de-Sabellizing' -it- as -kt-, and

by

> generalization, -Vik- as -Vkk- is out of the question.

Buck's intermediate stage is necessary to explain the vocalism of
<ar^veitu> and <kuveitu>. Without it, one would expect *-weheto:d >
*-we:tu, with a long monophthong instead of a diphthong.

My objections are, first, most average Romans knew little or no
Umbrian anyway, would be unlikely to know that <feitu> (for example)
corresponded systematically to <facito>, and would have no reason
to "de-sabellize" a word anyhow. Second, even if they did regularly
practice "de-sabellization", they would be unlikely to generalize
from "/Vit/ really means /Vkt/" to "/Vik/ really means /Vkk/". In
Latin itself, apices on inscriptions show that /akt/ became /a:kt/
(which is Somebody's Law, I forget whose), but no such lengthening
occurred with /akk/. The cluster /kt/ and the geminate /kk/ had
different effects on their surroundings. And finally, if any Romans
knew Umbrian well enough to "de-sabellize" its words, they would know
that /kk/ had become /çç/ in Umbrian, in the very word under
discussion.

> > > It would correspond to Norw. (un-Grimm) peik "böser Streich"
> > > http://www.angelfire.com/rant/tgpedersen/KuhnText/01paik-
> > betr_gen.html
> >
> > Distinct roots *peik- and *peig-, in Gmc. *fi:h-/*fi:g- and *fi:k-

,

> > appear to have been confounded due to synonymy between 'wicked,
> > hurtful, treacherous' and 'marked, branded'.
>
> Kuhn's usual explanation is that some words were only partially
> affected by Grimm, eg the anlaut stop would be affected, the auslaut
> one not.

That seems unnecessary. One of the difficulties of NWB theory as
presented in "Anlautend P-" is that three of the NWB roots have
interdentals, /þ/ or /ð/. I do not believe that NWB had these
sounds, but that the Gmc. words involved (including 'path') are
derived from pre-Grimm Gaulish loanwords. (I am aware that the Much-
Kluge derivation of 'path' from Scythian remains popular after a
century, and a posting arguing for Gaulish instead is in preparation.)

> > Kuhn's *peik- is a good NWB example, in my opinion.
>
> I want you consider what you are saying here, since it is pretty
> momentous. If one admits of non-Grimm-shifted forms in Germanic
> outside of the NWB area between Weser-Aller and Somme-Oise (and
> possibly in OE and descendants, since ex-NWB-speakers might have
> participated in the Saxon invasion), that is, in Lower Saxony,
> Schleswig-Holstein and Scandinavia, there can be only two

explanations:

> 1) People from the NWB area emigrated to there, or
> 2) Germanic is intrusive in those areas, people used to speak
> non-Grimm-shifted (but closely related) languages.
> Now that is basically the content of my dispute with George.
> Kuhn never mentions this as a problem, for some reason, he just

seems

> to ignore it.

I regard (2) as partially correct. I take the Elbe-Oder interfluve
plus southern Scandinavia as the Germanic homeland, and the place
where the Grimm shift actually occurred. Lower Saxony is outside the
interfluve, Schleswig-Holstein inside. NWB-speakers appear to have
had no presence in Scandinavia, since Old Norse has hardly any native
words with initial /p/. Norwegian could have picked up a few NWB
words later on, perhaps from Middle Dutch.

Krahe recognized the absence of Alteuropäisch river-names in the Elbe-
Oder interfluve as a problem for his theory. It is not a problem for
my version of the theory, since I take the bulk of AE river-names
(exclusive of those like Regana/Regina which do not belong there) as
Indo-Iranian and intrusive in the West. In my view the Proto-Germans
were successful in keeping the AE-speakers out of the interfluve, and
the Proto-NWBers were nearly as successful in keeping them out of the
lower Rhine basin, where only some smaller rivers have AE names.
Celtic expansion later shrank the NWB area down to the Weser-
Aller/Somme-Oise borders, but as I mentioned Hercynia cannot be
regarded as an original Celtic name, and Kuhn argued (I forget where)
that the tribal name Parisii contains *par(a)- which appears in
Celtic names as Ar(e)-, so it is likely an NWB name.

> > > No more need to put a foot in it (although *pe:(i) etc might
> > > ultimately be from *ped- "lower(?)" v.).
> >
> > We need less lumping, not more. Or at any rate we should first

do

> > as much splitting as possible, then look for lumping

opportunities.

>
> That's a timing issue. Or: Been there, done that. Ultimately, I

think

> the *ped- root is a loan, cf. the extreme lumpiness in
> http://www.angelfire.com/rant/tgpedersen/pd.html

That list needs to be whittled down. Roots like *bhedh- are not
equivalent to *ped-. Zero-grade is found in Latin <agrippa> 'person
born feet-first', which Schulze explained as *agri-pd-a: 'first with
the foot'. Incidentally, Nicholson explained West Romance *petitto-
'small' (e.g. French <petit>) on the basis of Latin <pede
tectus> 'covered by the foot' (i.e. 'minute', weakened to 'small' by
semantic devaluation).

DGK