From: tgpedersen
Message: 60366
Date: 2008-09-26
>You can call them argots if you want, my impression is they are
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
> To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
>
> > ===========
> >
> > Could you explain how you go from Semitic to Venetic to Latin ?
>
> It's more like an MO, a modus operandi.
> I assume that those words in Latin in which a root vowel /a/ can't
> be explained by schwa secundum, those Ernout & Meillet are calling
> 'mots populaires' are loans from one or several other languages. I
> make the risky assumption for methodological reason they are from
> just one, unless proven otherwise.
>
> ==============
> It's one possibility,
> but I tend to think that some technical jargons retain archaic
> features and do not behave like standard words.
> So some of these "popular" words can only be professional dialects
> with odd features.
> Arnaud
> ===========
> If they occur with /a/ in other IE languages,Hans Kuhn:
> so much the better. If they have initial p- or are of the form *TVT-
> where T is an unvoiced stop (Kuhn's criteria for Nordwestblock-ness)
> and occur in Germanic, so much the better. If they occur unshifted
> (relative to the Latin term) in Germanic, so much the better.
>
> ============
> i suppose you already have posted a list of Nordwestblock words,
> I'm interested in getting the references.
> Arnaud
> =========
> The ethnic background is what I read in Okulicz 'Einige Aspekte derThe danger is in whether that venet- meant the same in all instances,
> Ethnogenese der Balten und Slawen im Lichte archäologischer und
> sprachwissenschaftlicher Forschungen' and Gol/a,b 'Origin of the
> Slavs' about the Veneti on the Baltic' on the Baltic Veneti
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vistula_Veneti
> and I've taken some facts from Joz^ef S^avli/Matej Bor: Unsere
> Vorfahren die Veneter (Engl. transl.: "Veneti - First Builders of
> European Community"), especially the many place names derivable from
> *venet- all over Europe
> =======
> I think it's a bit dangerous to assume that all words that _sound_
> like [venet] should be considered as _derived _ from a common
> source *venet.
> This is much too rash for me.
> Arnaud
> ========
> I give you another one :I believe it. Does it make sense that the regions in which most new
> Does it make sense to compare the percentage of the socialist party
> in 1978 with the ethnic composition over France's territory in -500
> BC ?
> The question is much less absurd than it seems !
> I can tell you more if you like this.
>
> Arnaud
> ==========
> I don't buy their idea that the Baltic Veneti spoke Slavic, but theAll depends in which end you start. The Veneti, BTW, have been
> idea that the Baltic Veneti, the Adriatic Veneti,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adriatic_Veneti
> and the Veneti of Gaul
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veneti_(Gaul)
> were once one people seemed worth investigating. Lately,
> Scandinavian archaeologists have pointed out that the Scandinavian
> bronze age seems to be related to similar cultures of the
> Mediterranean, it would seem reasonable that such a people would be
> the transmitters of Wörter und Sachen along with the
> Semitic-speaking Phoenicians, and also that they, being sea-borne,
> should have contributed the Old-European river names.
>
> ============
> We know for sure that the Phoenicians settled in north Africa,
> Their impact on Berber languages is very slight.
> I know of only one word, onion bz.alim
> As a matter of fact, the impact of Latin over Berber is stronger,
> reaching even the Touareg.
>
> This makes me very very sceptical about any impact of the
> Phenicians on the northern side of the Mediterranean where
> Phoeniceans never really settled.
> The Greeks settled as early as -600 and their impact on Southern
> French dialects is provable. And on standard French too.
>
> I believe this Old-European river-names can be explained otherwise.
> In my own scenario of PIE,
> Originally, say around -15 000, standard PIE was in the western
> part of Anatolian,
> Across the Aegian sea, there was a close relative of PIE
> ("pelasgian or whatever") ultimately overrun by Greek.
> In the north of Anatolia (at the place where the black Sea now
> exists) there were early PIE splitters like Yeniseian and Salish.
> After the end of Wurm ice age around -12 000, "Aegian" PIE moved
> north and occupied central Europe, creating the layer of
> Old-European names with archaic features like a instead of e.
> Yeniseian and Salish moved east to their current places.
> Standard PIE also moved north and began to split in Western,
> central and Eastearn PIE.
> After - 8000, when agriculture was invented, a new layer of people
> and PIE languages with modern features *e started to invade
> (central and eastern) Europe.
>
> Everything can be explained with different historical layers of PIE.
>
> Arnaud
> ===========
> > The /w/ in -wes is related to the m/w in verbal 1pl and in theI was cleaning out among the *cat- and *cal- roots in Ernout-Meillet ;-)
> > suffix *-ment-/*went-. That, in my world is from my favorite
> > phoneme, the labio-velar nasal /n,W/. Thus, a ppp of *kad- would
> > be *kadán,W-, from which one gets both *kadán,W-r- > cada:uer and
> > *kadán,W-i- > calami-(tas) (BTW, note the /g/ of OE(?) popoeg,
> > which can be explained as < /n,W/). That means I can give up the
> > reconstructions with -ni- for calamitas/catamitas.
>
> BTW, if *kat-án,W- (*katl-án,W-?) is a ppp it would mean "fallen,
> defeated" which would explain 'catamite' as spoils of war.
>
> =======
> I don't really know what to think about this idea.
> Postponed to another day !
> Arnaud
> ======
> > This supposes that the alternation w/m is two allophones not twoIt should actually be in the PIE system for systematic reasons.
> > phonemes.
> > The same kind of reasoning leads MArtinet to think the alternation
> > -r/-n goes back to *nt.
> > I'm very much sceptical about that.
> > More over if /ngW/ were a phoneme, it should be frequent. and this
> > w/m should be widespread.
> > We don't see anything like this.
>
> I think it might be a foreign element in PIE. Note *akWa, if you
> posit that as a variant of *an,Wa, you could get *(a)n,Wa-t- >
> *wat-, *mat-, *nat- free of charge. Or it is an element of PPIE
> which already in PIE has decomposed into /w/, /m/ and /n/ and if
> our only criterion for finding it is the presence of alternating
> w/m/n we wouldn't find it in many places.
> ======
> Labio-velars in PIE are frequent.
> this NgW should be frequent too.
> There should be _a lot of_ traces like for H1 and H2.As I said, the traces would be /w/, /m/ and /n/. And PIE has o lot of
> it does not seem so for this *NgW.
> I'm therefore sceptical.
> I agree that *akWa is a puzzle.Here's something that should interest a French-speaker.
> It can't be analysed as being a-mobile + whatever root kW or k_w.
> It does not have clear cognates elsewhere.
> Arnaud
> =========
> T. Burrow: 'The Sanskrit Language'The reason the so/to paradigm is suppletive, I think, is because the
> 'The behaviour of the suffix of the 1 pl. is in several ways
> reminiscent of the corresponding nominal suffix. In the first place
> the coexistence of two forms, one beginning with w and one with m,
> which is seen in Hittite, is matched by a similar duality in the
> infinitival forms containing the same elements : tiyawar, tiyawanzi;
> tarnummar, tarnummanzi. In Sanskrit the suffixes -vant and -mant are
> found in the same way side by side with similar function. Another
> similarity between the verbal and nominal forms is seen in the
> variation of the latter part of the suffix : IE wen/wes, men/mes. '
> Torsten
> ========
> Yes, but this is not enough to posit that these are allophones.
> Otherwise the same reasoning applies to *so/to "anaphoric"
> and to any consonantal alternation.
> Arnaud
> ==========