From: tgpedersen
Message: 64983
Date: 2009-09-05
>There aren't any (yet).
> > > > *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.
>
> OK, what are some other cases where nasal+s > vowel length?
> > > What is the alternate *g part, if not originally part of theThe ar-/ur- etc language, presumably. But it seems to occur in many FU languages too.
> > > root,
> >
> > It is part of the original root. *in,#- > *i:g#.
>
> Which language exactly does that, and what other examples there are?
> And isn't the Germanic vowel short in the -k- items?Yes, but the consonant is short, so to speak (cluster).
>It's a good ablaut alternation, for starters. Other than that, no.
> > > and where do you think the *j- there come from?
> >
> > There seems to be an alternation *i- <> *je-, for whichever
> > reason.
>
> In other words: you have no idea?
> And if there is also ge- (as well as even he- in Dutch?) we canThe *g- / *j- (and *g- / *w-) alternation seems to be a North European phenomenon and I'm tempted to ascribe it to the ar- / ur- language too.
> probably rule out this being some sort of vowel breiking.
> So now it seems these would have to be post-PG loans, leaving "ice"Why?
> as older.
> > > > And since I assume that to be the ar-/ur-, geminate, birdMost of them I've taken from Kuhn or Schrijver and obviously, as the above tirade shows, you have either not understood or not read them. Once again, Schrijver here:
> > > > 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.
>
> Well: as far as I gather, you seem intent on generalizing every
> alternation to every remotely applicable word without paying
> attention to details of geographic distribution, morphological
> distribution, semantic distribution or generally to any details at
> all. A "do sound changes for free" card of sorts.
> Oh, and let's add that you apparently on some level accept thatOf course I can't determine what's morphological and what's dialectal with the low number of items and with the fact that they occur only as loans in other and migratory languages. But I did actually make a proposal that would make the *-VK:- / *-VNK- alternation morphological:
> this isn't a single substrate language as much as a family of
> languages, and yet make no apparent effort to distinguish the
> individual languages & how this alternation works in each.
> So saying "a substrate did it" comes across about as useful as "aAll things you don't understand how work seem like wizardry. Read the article.
> wizard did it".
> If you think this is a miscaracterization, feel free to trump meI have one: read the article.
> with some good answers to my first two questions up there.
> > > How can you tell "ice" is zero-grade, and that the -s here isA partitive genitive -s- suffix.
> > > the same suffix?
> >
> > I'm guessing, of course. Linguists do that.
>
> So let me get this right:
> - This word contains /s/
> - A word we know in Aestian contains /s/A partitive genitive -s- suffix.
> - Therefore, you're guessing that this word is from Aestian???Actually, which I forgot to mention, I think the Aestii by Tacitus' time had switched to Venetic. But other than that, yes.
> I hope I miss'd something.Your hope was true.
> > > And that still leaves it unexplained why there is a linkingI think Venetic was IE. That's an IE participle suffix.
> > > vowel here but not in "ice".
> >
> > The -a- is a participle suffix.
> Per what? We kno basically nothing about Aestian.
> > As you can see there aren't any meaningful objections to it.I said 'meaningful objections'.
>
> Too bad you're not the one who gets to call if there are any
> objections.
> > > > Pokorny is only able to able to unify the "ice" root byI wasn't being ironic. You were being sloppy.
> > > > 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 irony is killing me.
> It's relevant in that I don't have to posit three PIE roots,Three roots in PIE, if you're otherwise following Pokorny.
> I can posit one PIE root and two loanwords, and any number ofYes you can. So why did you pretend one inherited, two loans is the only solution?
> similar permutations on that.
> > > The fact that Germanic ends up with two forms > "ice", "icle"Now you're suddenly back to two. How did that happen?
> > > 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.
>
> The alternatives for their dating are:
> 1) both are loaned simultaneously
> 2) both are loaned at different times
> 3) one is loaned, one is inherited
> 4) both are inherited, and derived from a common form
> The words are of different age in Germanic in 2) and 3). Which of1) or 2), with 'all three' for 'both'.
> 1) or 4) do you want to support? I believe 1), but how do you
> determine thay are of the same age?
> > > Anyway, what DO we make of the BSlavic form? We need only needWhich means it might have been lost.
> > > nasals on the IE side for this form.
> >
> > Now you're making no sense at all.
> >
> > UEW
> (snip examples)
>
> To restate, we only need nasals *on the IE side* for this form.
> That is, Germanic, Celtic and Iranian do not reflect a nasal in any
> sense.
> I don't think we can by IE data alone decide which (if any) of *gNow you are assuming without argument that -g-, -s- and -n- are suffixes or 'extensions'.
> *s *n is original.
> Factoring in Uralic then only really tells that *s is likely to beI think it's a genitive -s-, used partitively.
> either an innovation or unrelated.
> Since Uralic comes with *j- it would be best related to the *gWhich *g forms?
> forms. How, I couldn't tell.
> (Hungarian _jeeg_ happens to be almost exactly the required formWhat do you mean by 'too young and too east'?
> but that's too young and too east...)
> > > Your "original *iN" fails immediately since this, too, is aLook at the grab bag of forms in UEW's *jän,V- entry. How well do they fit? Cut me some slack here.
> > > long vowel, despite no loss of *N.
> >
> > The ar-/ur- etc alternation is -VNC- / -V:C- / -VC:-. This is
> > -VNV-. No fail.
>
> Um, your other message givs the BSlavic form as *i:n with a long
> vowel AND a nasal.
> > > Given the geographics, I'm tempted to apply Uralic influenceOh, that substrate. Please write a treatise on its morphology and major dialects. Make sure not to generalize every alternation to every remotely applicable word without paying attention to details of geographic distribution, morphological distribution, semantic distribution or generally to any details at all. No "do sound changes for free" card.
> > > (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?
>
> Simply whatever would be mediating the word to Slavic.
> Altho if a single *jek- cannot be constructed for Germanic, thisDon't 'we' me. *You* are back there.
> scenario becomes untenable. We could switch back to considering
> *eis the original form, but we can't explain any of the others
> starting from that, so it's back to square one. Sigh.
> > > > > (The correspondence is also non-trivial so the point ofWhich one is glide plus open vowel and which one is a close vowel? I can't follow you.
> > > > > 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.
>
> No. One is glide+open vowel, the other a close vowel.
> By "common form" I mean loaning from the one and the same form; not*jen,- / *in,- is a perfectly good ablaut alternation, for starters.
> anything like loaning from related but distinct forms.