Re: Identity of the 'language of geminates'

At 5:17:09 PM on Sunday, October 19, 2008, tgpedersen wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> <BMScott@...> wrote:

>> At 3:52:12 PM on Saturday, October 18, 2008, tgpedersen
>> wrote:

>> [...]

>>> Hellquist's text
>>> http://runeberg.org/svetym/0462.html
>>> is

>> [...]

>>> Nära besl. med det senare är sannol. mlty. (hals)quarder,
>>> querdar m., rand, infatt- ning, varifrån sv. dial. kvard,
>>> bred fåll, linning, no. kvarde, ä. da. korde; i så fall
>>> egentl.: hals, sedan: halskrage o. d., alltså med samma
>>> betyd.-utveckling som i krage.'

>>> sannol(ikt) = likely.

>> Exactly.

>>> Hellquist doesn't seem too convinced here of a derivation
>>> "swallow" > "edge". Nor am I.

>> There's nothing more to be said if you insist on a wilful
>> misreading of the text; I understand <sannolikt> 'likely,
>> probably' to mean exactly what it says.

> If I use 'likely, probably' I am not convinced, I still
> have doubts.

What it should mean is that you're open to the possibility
that the conclusion is incorrect, but you none the less have
a fairly high degree of confidence in it.

>> Had it been <möjligt>, you'd have had a point --

> In that case too.

>> but in that case I'd not have said 'So does Hellquist'.

> Probably not, but so what? I pointed out Hellquist wasn't
> entirely convinced of his proposal.

No, you said that 'Hellquist doesn't seem too convinced',
which is quite different from 'Hellquist [isn't] entirely
convinced'. 'Hellquist doesn't seem too convinced' means
that he appears to have *considerable* doubt, significantly
more than is implied by 'probably, likely'. It would be a
reasonable conclusion if he'd written <möjlig>; here it
simply isn't correct.

Brian