Re: Sin once more

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

>
> --- 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";

...

> > > > 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.)?

...

> > > 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.

But how would they distinguish 'primary' from 'secondary' -kt-?

> 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.

Latin dictionaries are full of explanations of this or that word as
Oscan or Umbrian loans into Latin; I think it must have been closer to
home, some low sociolect in Rome with Sabellian features. We know
there was such a sociolect, the shibboleth -au-/-o- (Petronius writes
'copo' for 'caupo'). If so, it would for the average Roman have been a
question of register, and they are easily muddled.

> 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/.

That might be Lachmann's law, root vowels are lengthened in the ppp
stem if the root ends in a voiced stop. No lengthening occurred in
other roots. If it is, we should expect lengthening -kk- if that is
from -d-k- (*ped-ka:), not otherwise.

> The cluster /kt/ and the geminate /kk/ had different effects on
> their surroundings.

Unless you were talking about Lachmann's law.

> 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.

If pecca: is the result of hypercorrecting from a Sabellian-like
sociolect in Latin, that particular rule might not be present in that
sociolect. Of course that is almost too convenient.

> > > > 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.

That would be from Gaulish *b-, from PIE *bh-, or PIE *gW-, *gWh-.
Apart from Kuhn's own suggestion of PIE *gWem-ti- > Gaulish
*ba-ti- > PGerm *pa-þi-, I can't think of any derivation from PIE
along the path you suggest of the NWB roots Kuhn presents, several of
which have sound Latin and Greek cognates as they stand. Meid
supplements with Gaelic lar, NWB Plore (in placenames), German Flur,
English floor.

> (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.)

I look forward to it. Perhaps also for Kuhn remaining roots in
p- ? ;-)

> > > 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.

Southern Scandinavia is out of the question.
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/30336
This is for Jysk, but as you can assure yourself by any dictionary,
standard Danish and Swedish are full of words in p-.

> 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/.

This is Kuhn's objection to that argument, from 'Anlautend p-':
'Heimat in einer niederen Schicht, darin stimmen die indogermanischen
Wörter mit anlautendem b- und die meisten unserer Stämme mit p- im
Anlaut überein. Davon ausgenommen sind bei uns fast einzig solche
Wörter, die mit sachlichen Neuerungen und dem Handel gekommen sein
können, lateinische wie andere. Ihre Sonderstellung tritt schon in den
alten Quellen klar an den Tag. Die Lieder der Edda im Norden, der
Beowulf in England, der altsächsische Heliand und Otfrids Werk im
Süden, diese vier ältesten großen dichterischen Werke oder Sammlungen
in vier Teilen Germaniens zusammen enthalten von den erörterten
Wortstämmen (ohne die lateinischen) nicht mehr als fünf, davon vier
typische Kultur- oder Wanderwörter: *paþ-„Pfad" (Beow. Otfr.), *paid-
„Rock" (Beow. Hel.), *pan(n)ing- „Pfennig" (Edda Otfr.) und *plo:g-
„Pflug" (Edda Otfr.). Der fünfte Stamm ist *pleg-(pflegen), dessen
Bedeutungskreis auffallend weit und dessen Herkunft und älteste
Verwendung unklar sind. Andere alte Kulturwörter haben wir zum
Beispiel in Pfand, Pfarre, Pflicht (als Schiffsteil) und Pfriem. Die
leicht aus dem Indogermanischen herleitbaren Stämme sind unter ihnen
sehr in der Minderheit.'

ie. that OE, OS and OHG are equally lacking in words in p- (OHG pf-),
which could be explained by assuming that what is recorded first has
the least of the words of the language of the unwashed (NWB et al.)
masses.

> Norwegian could have picked up a few NWB words later on, perhaps
> from Middle Dutch.

A large part of the vocabulary of the three Scandinavian languages is
assumed to be Low German, which played the same role here as OF in
England. The usual procedure is to assume that if a word exists in the
three Scand. l. and in Low German, but not in ON, it is a loan from
Low German, but that is of course no proof that the word didn't exist
in a low register here before the time of the dominance of the Hanse
(Low German was the language of the Hanse, the records of the Hanse
meetings, now in Mal/bork, German Marienburg, are partly in Latin,
partly in Low German)

> 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.

When do you think Indo-Iranians intruded there?

I think they're Venetic. That would explain why almost all river names
in Europe are in one language: they were the ones who used them.

Check the maps in the folder
Placenames untouched by Grimm, maps 08-12, 16
in the folder
Maps from Udolph
in the files section.
Be aware that Udolph, in order to save Germania as the home of the
Grimm-shift posits an pre_Grimm un-Grimm rule p > b, t > d, k > g,
which took place on a select few Germanic words, among them,
conveniently enough all the river names in Germania, before Grimm's
b > p, d > t, g > k set in, which all resulted in the present
situation, which scandalously can be much better explained by assuming
that there was no Grimm-shift on the territory of the later Germania.

> In my view the Proto-Germans were successful in keeping the
> AE-speakers out of the interfluve,

That would make sense if AE was Venetic and the Veneti lived
(survived) in the De,bczyn culture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Przeworsk2.PNG

> 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,

We can't be sure the assimilation *p-kW- > *kW-kW- took place in the
para-Celtic spoken in the Hercynian forest.

> and Kuhn argued (I forget where)

Grenzen vor- und frühgeschichtlicher Ortsnamentypen

> that the tribal name Parisii contains *par(a)- which appears in
> Celtic names as Ar(e)-, so it is likely an NWB name.

But this is preserved p-, and 'Hercynia' has *p- > h-

> > > > 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).

Ingenious, but not convincing.
Here's a quote from Burrows: The Sanskrit language
'Ancient thematic neuters in IE are very rare. Skt. yugám is shown to
be ancient by the correspondence of Gk. zugón, Lat. iugum, etc.
Another ancient word is Skt. padám 'step', Gk. pédon, Hitt. pedan,
which may be presumed to have originated in the same way, though
direct evidence is lacking in this case. Gk. érgon 'work' with the
same rare and no doubt ancient apophony as pédon is to be classed with
it. It should be noted that such primitive thematic neuters, which
according to this theory are transformed m-stems, are not only
exceedingly rare, but they are the only class which provide certain
word equations between different IE languages. Thus the thematic
neuters of secondary origin, namely (1) extensions of neuter
consonantal stems and (2) the still later though numerous taddhita
formations, are of later origin. It would be difficult otherwise to
explain the absence of detailed agreement among these formations
between the various languages. In this connection also we must note
the complete absence of the latter two formations in Hittite.'
and
http://www.angelfire.com/rant/tgpedersen/yug.html

It seems pretty fantastic, I know, but I think both *pad- and *yug-
are well travelled Wanderwörter. Under those circumstances it would be
wrong to force either word into a PIE Procrustean bed.

And BTW, I just fell over
Vannetais Breton paoter "little boy", Dutch peuter "small child"


Torsten