From: andythewiros
Message: 64902
Date: 2009-08-21
>I meant sound-symbolism that has occurred recently, as opposed to anciently as possibly with Latin puer (and perhaps most IE words, if that's the origin of words?).
> >
> > > Explain this then:
> > > Vannetais Breton paoter "little boy",
> > > Dutch peuter "small child",
> > > Latin puer "boy"
> >
> > Well, the Breton and Dutch words _could_ be examples of renewed
> > sound-symbolism, could they not?
>
> What is renewed sound-symbolism?
>If you found _exactly_ 'Lakeesha' and 'Jawanda'. What we find in OE is not _exactly_ the Illyrian, Etruscan, and Venetic names. If you found names similar to 'Lakeesha' and 'Jawanda' and other African-American names, but _not_ the same, you'd probably think they were just uncommon Japanese names. In OE they were similar to the Illyrian, Etruscan, and Venetic names, but not the same. Hence you'd think they were uncommon OE names, not foreign (assuming you're not a linguist and don't know about the frequency of initial [p] in Germanic).
>
> > They are not so perfectly similar as finding 'Lakeesha' or
> > 'Jawanda' in Japan. But I think even 'Lakeesha' and 'Jawanda' fit
> > Japanese sound-patterns if you make the one change of [l] to [r]
> > (the lack of either of which is so common in east asian languages,
> > earlier stages of the languages might have had both sounds -- I'm
> > no expert about this), so if you found names similar to these in
> > Japanese records, you might not ascribe them to an African-American
> > substrate.
>
> The point I was trying to make is that if you found those words in a Japanese context _today_, you'd make those inferences.
>OK, but I think most OE words with initial [p] are actually from Latin, and the substrate words you mention are probably quite few, indicating that this substrate did not have that great an effect on OE language or, by inference, names.
>
>
> > OK, early and heroic Germanic literature would not have many names
> > beginning with [p], since this ethnic group did not have frequent
> > initial [p], but by the time of most Old English literature [p] had
> > become significantly more common through borrowing
>
> From a substrate, because over time the social lines blurred, and names or words before left unmentioned began to appear in the literature.
>OK, that's a good point. But again I wonder whether coincidence might be involved. Or whether the name-creation (out of thin air) occurred on the continent before the invasion of England, and initial [p] was felt to be a legitimate phoneme due to the considerable number of words borrowed from Latin among the continental Germanic population.
> > (and perhaps innovation), so names beginning with [p] would
> > probably not have been felt to be ethnically foreign, as in earlier
> > periods, and therefore new names with initial [p] might have been
> > invented at a later period.
>
> But they would not have matched foreign names in NWGermany and the Netherlands like some if these do.
>I'm saying that [p] was already a naturalized initial phoneme by the time of the OE and other Germanic names mentioned, so it should not be unusual to find names beginning with this phoneme, since names did not have to be inherited from Germanic but rather could be invented (and follow the typical sound patterns of the language concerned, which at this time permitted initial [p]).
> > That is, if I understand your point correctly.
> > How many names with consonants other than [p] look to be of
> > Illyrian/Venetic/Etruscan origin?
>
> The only other type of NWBlock words we can tell against the Germanic background are those in *TVT-, for T unvoiced stop (they would, if Germanic, had come from *DVD-, for D voiced unaspirated stop, which is not a permitted PIE root structure.
>
> > Do any of them?
>
> Other than those, we don't know.
>
>
> > I'm sure they all look sufficiently Anglo-Saxon that scholars would
> > not wonder whether they are of foreign origin, though they could
> > be. But because of the status of [p] in Germanic, names beginning
> > with this phoneme are probably the only ones questioned as being of
> > foreign origin, as though only names with initial [p] were
> > borrowed, the rest being native. If names without initial [p] are
> > not questioned and considered native, I see no reason why names
> > with initial [p] must be questioned, since [p] was an initial
> > phoneme in OE. I'm sure many of the names without initial [p],
> > considered native, might also be innovations like Lakeesha or
> > Jawanda, only they don't have this controversial initial [p].
>
>
> Are you saying that 'questioning' the phoneme /p/ on its Germanicness is unfair because the other phonemes aren't which makes it ethnic profiling against the poor /p/ and so it shouldn't be done? You can't be serious.
>OK, if not controversial, then curious, since you have pointed them out as being unusual and suggestive of non-native origin.
>
> > Of course, the names without initial [p] might also be of foreign
> > substrate origin, if the names with initial [p] prove that some OE
> > names are of foreign substrate origin. I'm just saying that
> > although this may be true, my explanation might also be true. I
> > just don't find names with initial [p] all that controversial in OE
> > or any other Gmc language.
>
> I don't find them controversial either. Nor do I find them Germanic.
>
> > Also, if the Gmc and Anglo-Saxon tribes did borrow these and otherHow do you know that?
> > names from the substrate people, I think it would show that they
> > had a lot of respect and esteem for these substrate people,
>
> Except they didn't in this hypothesis. Those who had those names were the substrate people themselves.
> > yet the lack of any mention of these peoples in any Gmc literatureThat (two words) sounds like very little recognition to me. But you say those names were not used for Germanic men and women, only for substrate people. That changes everything, because then these names were not considered naturalized Germanic. I thought the whole point of your bringing attention to these names was because it seemed a mystery why Germanic names should begin with [p]. But I see I've completely misunderstood you from the start. If those were the names of the substrate people, there's nothing unusual about any of this. Except maybe that they would make place-names from these substrate names plus the element -tu:n. But that is expectable if they're merely named after a substrate person who lived there. So I guess your point was that these place-names offer more evidence of a Nordwestblock/Venetic (or whatever) substrate. I guess I misunderstood what you were saying. I thought the idea of this substrate was basically accepted, so subconsciously I didn't think it needed any more support in the form of place-name analysis.
> > (am I wrong on this point?) seems to imply the opposite, that the
> > substrate people were of little value to the Gmc and Anglo-Saxon
> > tribes.
>
> Kuhn says somewhere they were called laeti in Northern Germany, something with *skalk- or the like in Southern Germany, but I can't find the quote.
> > Hence I would think the Anglo-Saxons would be quite unlikely toI got it to work.
> > name their sons and daughters after these insignificant people.
>
> True. And they didn't.
>
> > > Ah, thought you'd never ask. Voilà:
> > > http://www.angelfire.com/rant/tgpedersen/KuhnText/list.html
>
> >
> > Unfortunately I am unable to open the link you have provided. I
> > don't know what's wrong.
>
> Works fine here. Try copying the URL.
>