From: tgpedersen
Message: 65008
Date: 2009-09-09
>Not quite. Since the presumptive donor language shows alternation *-VNT-/*-VT:-/*-V:T-, an extra variant with nasalization *-V~T- could be expected and an alternation *-VNs-/-V~s-/*-V:s- would then not be unlikely.
> > > > > > *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).
> h
> Then it IS ad hoc. Without regularity, this is speculation.
> > > > > What is the alternate *g part, if not originally part of thePresumably.
> > > > > 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.I wasn't being quite precise.
>
> *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?*-kl-
> >
> > Yes, but the consonant is short, so to speak (cluster).
>
> I'm not following. Cluster where?
>Economy. I don't have another language to ascribe it to.
> > > 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?Not unless *j- > *g.
> > > So now it seems these would have to be post-PG loans, leavingNot if building stems with a partitie suffix -s- is a Venetic specialty. I'm not aware of it in other IE languages.
> > > "ice" as older.
> >
> > Why?
>
> It goes regularly to PG, no?
>
> > > as far as I gather, you seem intent on generalizing everyWho said it was?
> > > 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 beWho said it did? All I'm saying is that this is *possible*.
> from the same language.
> > > Oh, and let's add that you apparently on some level accept thatOf course not.
> > > 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.
>Yes.
> > 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?
> > > > > How can you tell "ice" is zero-grade, and that the -s hereTrue. It's a proposal.
> > > > > 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/The morphological identity is part of the proposal.
> >
> > 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???More like an inclusive sense.
> >
> > 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?
>If you split up one of Pokorny's two roots for "ice" and "icle" into two you have three, if you're otherwise following Pokorny.
> > > > > > 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 ofUnless *j- > *g-
> > > 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",No, why?
> > > > > "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?
>Un-economic
> > > 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.True.
>
>
> > > 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.
>I *am* speculating.
> > > > > 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 quiteWhat's the word doing in Turkic (as per UEW)?
> regularly (except, as usual, in Permic).
>Yes. Loan and /n,/ > /n/.
> > > > > 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?
>Yes. Both. I have a speculative explanation.
> > > 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.OK.
> > > > > > > (The correspondence is also non-trivial so the point ofTrue, but that type of ablaut alternation is phonetically natural and could have arisen in many language families.
> > > > > > > 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.
> >
>
> If you admit ablaut alternation, you are admitting loaning from
> different forms.
> Also note that this is *jäN, not *jeN.True. I'd have to assign the 'ablaut alternation' to same third, donor language.
>