Re: Laryngeals Indo-Uralic

> > > > > *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?
>
> There aren't any (yet).

Then it IS ad hoc. Without regularity, this is speculation.

> > > > What is the alternate *g part, if not originally part of the
> > > > root,
> > >
> > > It is part of the original root. *in,#- > *i:g#.
> >
> > Which language exactly does that, and what other examples there
> > are?
>
> The ar-/ur- etc language, presumably.

"Presumably", ie. also a completely ad hoc change?

> But it seems to occur in many FU languages too.

*N > *Nk is regular in Ugric in all positions, from which > g in Hungarian. What "many" other languages did you have in mind?

> > And isn't the Germanic vowel short in the -k- items?
>
> Yes, but the consonant is short, so to speak (cluster).

I'm not following. Cluster where?

> > And if there is also ge- (as well as even he- in Dutch?) we can
> > probably rule out this being some sort of vowel breiking.
>
> The *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.

Any other reason than "I would like to do so"?

And then the *i- forms cannot really be related by ablaut, can they?

> > So now it seems these would have to be post-PG loans, leaving
> > "ice" as older.
>
> Why?

It goes regularly to PG, no?

> > 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.
>
> Most 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:
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/62677

> and Kuhn, on the same roots:
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/48657

All I keep seeing is that Germanic has a bunch of words that vacillate between single and geminate and voicing. I don't see how this implies that all of it is due to original substrate alternation (as opposed to eg. varation of interpretation when loaning, inter-Germanic loans, or affectiv reshaping), and especially not how this implies that "ice"/"ickle" would be from the same language.

> > Oh, and let's add that you apparently on some level accept that
> > 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.
>
> Of 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.

Yes, yes. This then leads to that I think there's no way to make statements with certainty here.

> But I did actually make a proposal that would make the *-VK:- / *-VNK- alternation morphological:
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/46149
> and that thread.

AFAICS that is about IE nasal infixes?

> > So saying "a substrate did it" comes across about as useful as "a
> > wizard did it".
>
> All things you don't understand how work seem like wizardry.

Of course. In other words, I'm saying "I don't understand your point".

> > > > 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.
> >
> > So let me get this right:
> > - This word contains /s/
>
> A partitive genitive -s- suffix.

You don't kno that. Actually, no -a-, therefore no partitiv?

> > - A word we know in Aestian contains /s/
>
> A partitive genitive -s- suffix.

What it is is not relevant, since we don't kno the morphological identity of the previous *s.

> > - 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.

Okay, now this is relevant...

Remind me, wasn't Venetic from Northern Italy? Are you using the word in a different sense?

> > > > > 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?

> > It's relevant in that I don't have to posit three PIE roots,
>
> Three roots in PIE, if you're otherwise following Pokorny.

Pardon? I'm not "following Pokorny".

> > I can posit one PIE root and two loanwords, and any number of
> > similar permutations on that.
>
> Yes you can. So why did you pretend one inherited, two loans is the only solution?

I never did. I was only presenting it as what I at the time thought the most parsimonious solution. Noticing the g/j alternation behind "ickle" rather kills it, however.

> > > > 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.
> >
> > 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
>
> Now you're suddenly back to two. How did that happen?

I'm only discussing Germanic now, not the other words.

> > The words are of different age in Germanic in 2) and 3). Which of
> > 1) or 4) do you want to support? I believe 1), but how do you
> > determine thay are of the same age?
>
> 1) or 2), with 'all three' for 'both'.

OK, but next, if you think they are all loans, why would they have to be of the same age and origin?

> > 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.
>
> Which means it might have been lost.

Or it might have been a newer addition in Slavic and Uralic, or various other combinations...

> > I don't think we can by IE data alone decide which (if any) of *g
> > *s *n is original.
>
> Now you are assuming without argument that -g-, -s- and -n- are suffixes or 'extensions'.

No, "original" would also cover sound changes. But so what? You've only been able to explain the variation by ad hoc sound changes yourself. This isn't really going anywhere.

> > Since Uralic comes with *j- it would be best related to the *g
> > forms. How, I couldn't tell.
>
> Which *g forms?

The Germanic/Celtic *g/jeg- that also have *j+vowel insted of *i-. Were there any other *g forms here?

> > (Hungarian _jeeg_ happens to be almost exactly the required form
> > but that's too young and too east...)
>
> What do you mean by 'too young and too east'?

Too young and too east to possibly be a substrate to disintegrating Germanic, what with arriving in Central Europe only in the 9th century.

> > > > 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.
> >
> > Um, your other message givs the BSlavic form as *i:n with a long
> > vowel AND a nasal.
>
> Look at the grab bag of forms in UEW's *jän,V- entry. How well do they fit? Cut me some slack here.

Slack? I thought you were proposing that you have found an adequate solution, not that you were just speculating.

The Uralic forms are hardly a "grab bag", the word works quite regularly (except, as usual, in Permic).

> > > > 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?
> >
> > Simply whatever would be mediating the word to Slavic.
>
> Oh, 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.

If you want me to be rigorous, my stance is that no relationship between these four "ice" roots is demonstratable. This "substrate Y" is what I'm coming up if working with your substrate methodology. As you can see, it requires quite a bit of assumptions. How do YOU explain the Slavic word, again? Can you do any better?

> > Altho if a single *jek- cannot be constructed for Germanic, this
> > 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.
>
> Don't 'we' me. *You* are back there.

Where DO you think you are, then? Do you think you have an explanation, or are you just speculating? If it's the latter, I think we can close this discussion.

> > > > > > (The correspondence is also non-trivial so the point of
> > > > > > divergence needs to be pre-PU or pre-PIE anyway.)

> > By "common form" I mean loaning from the one and the same form;
> > not anything like loaning from related but distinct forms.
>
> *jen,- / *in,- is a perfectly good ablaut alternation, for starters.
>
> Torsten

If you admit ablaut alternation, you are admitting loaning from different forms.

Also note that this is *jäN, not *jeN.

John Vertical