Re: Neigh

From: tgpedersen
Message: 60164
Date: 2008-09-20

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...> wrote:
>
> At 8:13:00 AM on Wednesday, September 17, 2008, Jonathan
> Morris wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > I have a copy of V's book (can I have my money back?) and
> > was waiting until my time in Purgatory to read it but was
> > prompted by your query to read the entry on knife, et al.
>
> > It's so transparently bullshit that it hardly deserves
> > comment - but for the sake of due diligence:
>
> [...]
>
> > 2. On the one hand, V says the word must have passed into
> > Old French late (p441) because you don't get 'chanif' but
> > 'canif' - (which, btw shows a profound ignorance of
> > Picard, which preserves k, and you'd expect to find canif
> > if the word was coming from the Germanic) then it's
> > borrowed from Old French into Middle English and from
> > there into Old Norse, with "Old English/Old Norse
> > bilingualism in the Danelaw contributing" (p.439) (sic).
> > So it's unlikely to get to England before 1066,
>
> To be fair, there are a few OE words borrowed from OFr
> before the Conquest; <prut> ~ <prud> 'proud' comes to mind.
> But there certainly aren't very many.

ON pruðr, ODa., Da, Nw. id., OSw prudher.
But it's a word in p- and may be loaned directly from that substrate..


> > years after the end of the Danelaw, but then goes straight
> > into Old Norse and Icelandic. Can anyone take this
> > seriously?
>
> Not I. It's clear that by this point V. has succumbed to
> the Brain Eater.
>
> [...]
>
> > --- Em ter, 16/9/08, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...>
> > escreveu:
>
> [...]
>
> > Unfortunately, the article is in German, but the abstract
> > isn'r:
>
> > 'Abstract
>
> > Traditionally, Engl. knife and related Germanic words -
> > Late OE cni:f, OFris. and MLG kni:f; MDu. cnijf (Du.
> > knijf), ON knífr - have been derived from an unattested
> > Germanic verbal root *knib- or, violating the sound laws
> > and disregarding the semantic discrepancy, from the
> > Germanic root *kni:p- 'to nip, pinch, squeeze'. The word
> > is most commonly assumed to have originated in Old Norse
> > and to have boon borrowed from there into Late Old English
> > and the other Germanic languages, then from Old English
> > into Old French as quenif, quanif 'pocket knife'; a
> > diminutive cnivet, canivet formed in Old French is assumed
> > to have traveled on into Provençal, Catalan, and other
> > Romance languages (e.g. OSpan. cañivete 'small knife'),
> > and finally into Basque as gaiñibeta, ganabeta, ganibet,
> > kanibet, etc. '(pocket) knife, penknife' with different
> > forms and meanings in the dialects.
>
> > Ten reasons are given why this assumed itinary is wrong,
> > among them the facts (1) that in the Middle Ages new
> > cultural objects and their names do not travel from north
> > to south but from south to north,
>
> For obvious historical reasons the prevailing direction is
> certainly south to north, but nothing makes this an
> unbreakable rule.
>
> <Cingler> 'to set sail', from ON <sigla> 'to sail'; <hauban>
> 'ropes supporting the mast', from ON <höfuðbendur>, plur. of
> <höfuðbenda> 'mainstay'; <hune> 'platform resting on a
> mast', from ON <húnn> 'the knob at the top of the masthead';
> <ris> 'a reef (of sails)' (<prendre un ris> 'to reef
> sails'), probably from ON <rif> 'a reef in a sail'. And
> while it isn't quite a cultural object, there's <vague> 'a
> wave', from ON <vágr> 'wave, sea'.
>
> Moreover, if there was indeed a PGmc. *kni:Baz 'knife', it's
> likely that OFr got the word from Frankish, hardly an
> unfamiliar occurrence; a further spread into the Iberian
> Romance dialects is also hardly surprising.
>
> > (2) that the implied development of a monosyllabic simplex
> > (kni:fr, knife) into an apparent compound of three or four
> > syllables (gaiñibeta, ganibet), though not impossible, is
> > at least peculiar,
>
> Not when (1) OFr isn't very happy with /kn-/, and (2) the
> <-et> is easily justified as an OFr addition. (Indeed, the
> fact that the OFr word *does* occasionally appear as
> <cnivet> points strongly to a borrowing from some Gmc.
> dialect.)
>
> > (3) that the presumed diminutive suffix -et of OFr.
> > cnivet, canivet is also found in Germanic (West Fris.
> > knyft '(large) pocket knife)', and
>
> In one variety undoubtedly of relatively late attestation.
> It really doesn't matter whether the <t> is epenthetic or
> whether the word is influenced by or borrowed from
> <c(a)nivet>: there's no reason to give it more weight than
> the rest of the Gmc. forms combined.
>
> I see that Torsten's now posted V.'s full discussion:
>
> 60. Epenthetisches -t ist denkbar, aber nicht naheliegend;
> die Annahme einer Entlehnung von canivet mit Synkope der
> unakzentuierten Erstsilbe +knivet), Initialakzentuierung
> der verbleibenden Form nach germanischem Muster (+knivét)
> und Synkope der nunmehrigen Zweitsilbe mit regressiver
> Stimmtonassimilation ergibt westfries. knyft [knift] ohne
> Zusatzannahmen.
>
> The last two words are highly amusing.
>
> > (4) that the entire set of words is left unexplained
> > because the traditional Germanic etymologies are
> > unacceptable.
>
> If those are the best four, the other six hardly matter. A
> wildly unlikely explanation (to put it kindly) is to be
> preferred to none at all (even if that were the case)? Von
> wegen!

> But I can see why Torsten likes him.

Erh, out of curiousity, why?

The idea that kanivét should be borrowed into Germanic as kanívet
needs further assumptions. But he could have claimed loan from the
attested knívet which you refer to.

And you don't seem to have noted these in my posting:

Jan de Vries: Altnordisches etymologisches Wörterbuch
under hn-
'Wörter mit dem anlaut hn- haben im germ. stark affektive bed.; sie
wechseln mit solchen, die mit gn- und kn- anfangen. Im allgemeinen
sind es germ. sonderbildungen, die sich nur ausnahmsweise auf idg.
grundformen zurückführen lassen'

'Die idg. grundwurzel *gen 'zusammendrücken, kneifen' hat
zahlreiche erweiterungen (IEW 370-3): |
...
Zum lautmalenden Charakter dieser wörter s. de Vries IF 62, 1956,
136-150. Die wzl *gen hatte urspr. wohl, genau wie *gel (vgl. kalfr)
und *ger (vgl. karmr) bezug auf den betrieb des niederwaldes; die
verbal-abstrakte bed. 'zusammendrücken, kneifen' war wohl nicht die
urspr. Wörter wie knartr, knútr, oder norw. dial. knust 'knorriger
klotz', ebenso wie ir. gnobh 'knoten am holz' deuten auf den
holzbetrieb. Diese gruppe zeigt bes. im germ. eine reiche entfaltung
der formen und bedeutungen; idg. verwandte sind selten, am meisten
noch im baltischen. Also wohl ein wort der nordgermanischen ebene.'

The first quote makes one suspect we are dealing with words of a
substrate. The second places that substrate wrt geography and
occupation, and shows (because of the derivations are of the type
*C1C2V´- (C2 = l, n, r) from IE roots of the type *C1eC2-) that that
substrate can't have had initial stress like most other North European
languages. If anything this language is the source of both the
Germanic and the Romance occurrences. Further, the supposed Germanic
word glesum "amber", of the same type places this type of word where
amber was collected, on the coast of the Baltic, on or close to the
later territory of the Baltic-speaking peoples (thus more likely a
loan in Germanic), so the closest candidate is the Veneti. This would
explain the occurrence of this type of word in Baltic (gnýbti in this
case) and in Baltic Finnic and Saamic. Cf. also Lat. sabulum, Engl.
sand, from *bhs-V´C- vs. Slavic pesok, which would point in the same
direction.

To quote myself:
'The best solution I can see to the problem of the Germanic doublets
in hn-/kn- (and hl-/kl-, hr-/kr-) is that they are loans from a
substrate which had doublets kn-/gn- (and kl-/gl-, kr-/hr-) as we see
in many Western Romance words, also in this. They might ultimately be
loans from something else (eg. Vennemann's Vasconian and Semitidic
Atlantic)'

And I'll add that direct loans into Germanic, without the Grimm-shift
would also occur. Cf. Lat. glob-, glom- vs. Eng. lump, clump, but also
glob.


Torsten