From: caotope
Message: 64979
Date: 2009-09-04
> > Nothing prevents one of these being a loan (from some IE, UralicBasically an ad hoc change, then?
> > or related source) and one inherited. The two elements seem to be
> > of different age anyway: "ice" (zero initial?) would fall under
> > the IE *H <> Uralic *j correspondence, while "ickle" (< gicel)
> > has likewise *j- and might thus be newer (within IE).
> >
> > Speaking of derivation, how much of your proposed derivation
> > *iNgs > *eis would be during the IE evolution and how much within
> > the donor language? I'm not aware of any regular law of
> > compensatory loss of *Ng. If anything, that looks like we should
> > get *ks.
>
> *in,-s- > *i:s- > *eIs-.
> And you just answered the question. It would have taken place in
> the donor language.
> And since I assume that to be the ar-/ur-, geminate, bird language,Let's not go there, please.
> it would have -VnC- / -V:C- / -VC:- alternations anyway
> > > 2) The limited and northern geographical distribution of theSo it goes. Didn't say any of these *must* disappear.
> > PIE words cognates (except for the Iranian word, but who knows
> > what nomads pick up).
> >
> > It's only natural that words meaning "ice" might be lost in more
> > southern descendants.
>
> 'Snow' wasn't.
> > Hm, but could it be Iranian palatalized this word to get *-s-,Palatalized due to being a palatovelar, not by the law of palatals.
> > and they loaned it to Germanic? Except the voicing doesn't quite
> > fit.
>
> You'd need a high vowel suffix for that.
> > > 3) The derivation with a genitive partitive -s as in *gl-a-sI'm still confused. Weren't you using this only as an example of a zero-grade + s derivation, not as cognate? How can you tell "ice" is zero-grade, and that the -s here is the same suffix? If anything, that you need to devise the ad hoc loss of *N suggests you're on the wrong track here. And that still leaves it unexplained why there is a linking vowel here but not in "ice".
> > > (and, I suspect, *gr-a-s) points to Aestian or whatever
> > > preceded it.
> >
> > Where does Aestian come into this?
>
> Because the word glesum "amber" is Aestian, according to Tacitus.
> > > > Etherman brought up other examples of a correspondenceThat means it isn't a *single* PIE root. Again, the only choices aren't "all inherited" and "all substrate". The fact that Germanic ends up with two forms > "ice", "icle" points to one form being inherited (at least to some depth) and another loan'd.
> > > > of PU *ä to IE *ei not long ago on the Nostratica list.
> > >
> > > That is not a counter-argument, loans of one and the same path
> > > also show regular substitutions.
> > >
> >
> > OTOH regular patterns should be explained as regular loaning only
> > if inheritance can be ruled out.
>
> Pokorny is only able to able to unify the "ice" root by postulating
> semantics-less -s- and -n- suffixes.
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/60884
> That means that root is not PIE
> > (The correspondence is also non-trivial so the point ofUralic *ä and IE *ei/*i: cannot be loaned from a common form.
> > divergence needs to be pre-PU or pre-PIE anyway.)
>
> I don't understand the last sentence.
>
>
> Torsten