From: tgpedersen
Message: 64981
Date: 2009-09-04
>BTW, that "ice" etc root behaves suspiciously in another way:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "caotope" <johnvertical@> wrote:
> >
> > > > Nothing prevents one of these being a loan (from some IE,
> > > > Uralic 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.
> >
> > Basically an ad hoc change, then?
>
> No, since that is part of the ar-/ur- etc language.
>
> > What is the alternate *g part, if not originally part of the
> > root,
>
> It is part of the original root. *in,#- > *i:g#.
>
> > and where do you think the *j- there come from?
>
> There seems to be an alternation *i- <> *je-, for whichever reason.
>
> > > And since I assume that to be the ar-/ur-, geminate, bird
> > > language, it would have -VnC- / -V:C- / -VC:- alternations
> > > anyway
> >
> > Let's not go there, please.
>
> Don't 'us' me. If you don't want to accept that, state why or keep
> your opinion to yourself.
>
>
> > > > > 2) The limited and northern geographical distribution of the
> > > > 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.
> >
> > So it goes. Didn't say any of these *must* disappear.
>
> Latin glacie:s
>
> > I am continuing this part pretty much for the sake of the
> > argument, tho.
>
> The argument in itself, or the result?
>
>
> > > > Hm, but could it be Iranian palatalized this word to get *-s-,
> > > > and they loaned it to Germanic? Except the voicing doesn't
> > > > quite fit.
> > >
> > > You'd need a high vowel suffix for that.
> >
> > Palatalized due to being a palatovelar, not by the law of
> > palatals.
> >
> >
> > > > > 3) The derivation with a genitive partitive -s as in *gl-a-s
> > > > > (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.
> >
> > I'm still confused. Weren't you using this only as an example of
> > a zero-grade + s derivation, not as cognate?
>
> Yes.
>
> > How can you tell "ice" is zero-grade, and that the -s here is the
> > same suffix?
>
> I'm guessing, of course. Linguists do that.
>
> > If anything, that you need to devise the ad hoc loss of *N
> > suggests you're on the wrong track here.
>
> Not ad hoc, see above, so invalid argument.
>
> > And that still leaves it unexplained why there is a linking vowel
> > here but not in "ice".
>
> The -a- is a participle suffix.
>
> > In other words, in what way is this better than Pokorny's
> > meaningless suffixes?
>
> As you can see there aren't any meaningful objections to it.
>
> > > > > > Etherman brought up other examples of a correspondence
> > > > > > 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
> >
> > That means it isn't a *single* PIE root.
>
> OK, so you want to posit three PIE roots instead of two.
>
> > Again, the only choices aren't "all inherited" and "all
> > substrate".
>
> True. How is that relevant?
>
> > 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.
>
> No it doesn't. It's your choice among several possible alternatives.
>
> > Anyway, what DO we make of the BSlavic form? We need only need
> > nasals on the IE side for this form.
>
> Now you're making no sense at all.
>
> UEW
> 'jän,e 'Eis' FU
> Finn. jää 'Eis';
> est. jää |
>
> lapp.
> N jiegn,â -n,- 'id.; glacier',
> L jiekn,a,
> K (484) T Kld. ji:ññ,
> Not jieññ 'Eis' |
>
> mord. E ej,ev,en,,ij, M jäj,äj |
>
> tscher. KBU i B ij |
>
> wotj. SG je, K d´o. |
>
> syrj. S P ji, Pec^. ji, PO ju. |
>
> ostj.
> (OL 160) V jön,k, DN jen,k, O jon,k,
> (160) V Vj. Trj. DN jen,k, Ni. Kaz. ji:n,k, O jin,k, 'Wasser' |
>
> wog. (WV 2) TJ l´ä:n,, KU jö:n,k, P So. ja:n,k |
>
> ung. jég (Akk. jeget, dial. gyég) 'id., Hagel'.
>
> Vgl türk. (nur in den sibirischen Türksprachen):
> soj. t´en,, koib. nen,, bak. nin, 'Grundeis'.
>
> FU *n, wurde
> in den perm. Sprachen zu Ø,
> in den Ug. Sprachen zu * n,k (> ostj.-wog. n,k, ung. g).'
>
>
> > Your "original *iN" fails immediately since this, too, is a long
> > vowel, despite no loss of *N.
>
> The ar-/ur- etc alternation is -VNC- / -V:C- / -VC:-. This is
> -VNV-. No fail.
>
> > Given the geographics, I'm tempted to apply Uralic influence
> > (direct or substrate-mediated) here, and keep the rest as
> > IE-internal. That is:
> >
> > Indo-Uralic #jäng-
> > Uralic inherited *jäNi
> > IE inherited *jeg'- > Germanic, Celtic, Satem Branch X
> > Iranian ends up with *eis loaned from SBX; later loaned by
> > Germanic Substrate Y ends up with *i:n- either by inheritance or
> > by loan from Uralic, which is loaned to Balto-Slavic
>
> What is Substrate Y?
>
> > > > (The correspondence is also non-trivial so the point of
> > > > divergence needs to be pre-PU or pre-PIE anyway.)
> > >
> > > I don't understand the last sentence.
> > >
> >
> > Uralic *ä and IE *ei/*i: cannot be loaned from a common form.
>
> *jän,- and *in,- can.
>