From: Arnaud Fournet
Message: 60389
Date: 2008-09-27
----- Original Message -----
From: "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
>> 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.
> >T
> ==============
> 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
> ===========
You can call them argots if you want, my impression is they are
widely spread semantically, but stay in subjects of the 'nether'
register, matters of daily life.
T
==============
I think these are two different things.
Arnaud
============
Cf.
>http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/30032
>except I now think it might have been loans from Baltic Venetic, at a
>time when Italic was spoken somewhere in Central Europe (Pannonia?)
>T
============
I don't think any of the words listed here are loanwords into PIE.
Arnaud
==========
>http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/44299
>T
===========
NWB necessarily had ablaut.
Ablaut is much older than PIE.
Arnaud
========
>> i suppose you already have posted a list of Nordwestblock words,
> >I'm interested in getting the references.
> >Arnaud
> =========
>Hans Kuhn:
>http://www.angelfire.com/rant/tgpedersen/KuhnText/list.html
>Cf also, for Jysk, the list in
>http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/30336
>http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/58952
>T
======
Thanks
Arnaud
=======
> >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
> ========
The danger is in whether that venet- meant the same in all instances,
not in the derivation.
T
======
Yes, we say the same.
Arnaud
===========
>I believe it. Does it make sense that the regions in which most new
>mosques were built the last ten years in France were those with
>non-Francophone minorities?
===========
I don't think we have non-francophone minorities in France.
Arnaud
============
>> Labio-velars in PIE are frequent.
>> this NgW should be frequent too.
>It should actually be in the PIE system for systematic reasons.
>T
========
??
there is no /Ng/ hence no /NgW/ either !?
Arnaud
============
>As I said, the traces would be /w/, /m/ and /n/. And PIE has o lot of
>/w/'s.
>T
===========
Some are *w, or (voiced) *b (not *p?) or *m? or *u.
Little wonder "surface" <w> is frequent.
Arnaud
=======
>Here's something that should interest a French-speaker.
>We posit a verb *(a)n,Wátl- "wade, walk (clumsily as) in water"
>Nice, huh? So it might be a loan in soldier Latin from some language
>which was spoken where it's very wet.
>T
========
Clever but I'm not sure it will become the reference etymology.
Arnaud
===========