From: Torsten
Message: 65060
Date: 2009-09-19
>Because it's an inflected form. They are generally not borrowed together with the root as separate loans, but derivatives are.
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Peter Schrijver
> > > > Lost Languages in Northern Europe
> > > > in: Early Contacts between Uralic and Indo-European
> > > >
> > > > [...]
> > > >
> > > > A second example of direct contact between the language of
> > > > geminates and a branch of Uralic is the Germanic word hand
> > > > (Gothic handus etc.) < Proto-Germanic *hand-. All attempts at
> > > > an Indo-European etymology of this word remain unconvincing
> > > > (see recently Kluge & Seebold 1989:353). Yet if we take
> > > > Grimm's and Verner's Laws into account, we may reconstruct
> > > > *hand- as *kant-. This looks strikingly like a cognate of
> > > > Proto-Finno-Ugric *käti 'hand, arm', but with a nasal infixed
> > > > into the root. Since this nasalization is not a feature of
> > > > Finno-Ugric, or of Indo-European (outside the nasal presents,
> > > > that is), and since it is a feature of the language of
> > > > geminates, it is reasonable to conclude that Finno-Ugric
> > > > *käti was borrowed by the language of geminates, from which
> > > > it subsequently entered Germanic before Verner's Law and
> > > > Grimm's Law.
> > >
> > > I find it hard to believe that Proto-Germans would have
> > > assigned a loanword lacking final /u/ to the feminine
> > > /u/-declension, rather than one of the more common paradigms.
> > > During historical times the Gmc. fem. /u/-decl., never high in
> > > members, loses ground. Old High German has already brought
> > > 'hand' into the /i/-decl., although traces of the /u/-decl.
> > > persist in Old and Middle HG. In Old English, beside <hand>
> > > only a handful of fem. /u/-stems are in common use. Indeed if
> > > the substratal protoform was *ka(n)t-, the Proto-Germans must
> > > have appended a stressed feminine *-ú- in order for Verner's
> > > Law to yield Gmc. *hanðu-, whence Gothic <handus> and the
> > > rest. This is not merely implausible, but without parallel.
> >
> > Why couldn't it be borrowed into PPGmc. as *kantú-?
>
> Why don't loanwords into modern English form plurals like
> <children>?
> > > Identifying substratal loanwords in Germanic requires more thanBut the donor language is not necessarily Uralic, we have to consider the fact of Yeneseian *k-t- "hunt". On the other hand, the semantic spread of the root (hunt, hunting lodge, mooring on side of river) seems to point to water-borne seasonal migration, which fits with the picture from Proto-Uralic.
> > > just throwing Grimm's and Verner's Laws at the alleged
> > > protoforms. The morphology of the attested forms must be
> > > considered as well. In this case I think that *handu- is an
> > > inherited Indo-European word of archaic formation.
> >
> > How do we know those supposed archaic formation aren't chimeric,
> > and actually belonging in the donor language? Anyway, that's what
> > I'll propose.
>
> In your extensive citations from the UEW I don't see any *kantu-,
> or anything suggesting *kantu-, in the donor language. Whence -u-
> if not an inherited IE formation?
> > > My best guess at a PIE protoform is *kóndHu- 'pincher,Not to worry. Pokorny uses the term Veneto-Illyrian.
> > > squeezer', from *kendH- 'to pinch, squeeze, compress', in turn
> > > an enlargement of *ken- 'compact, compressed'. This primary
> > > adjectival root is Pokorny's *ken-(1) (IEW 558) under which are
> > > listed mostly nominal extensions of zero-grade *kn-, and some
> > > words whose IE origin is doubtful (Sanskrit <kanda-> m. 'bulb';
> > > Greek <kóndos> 'horn, ankle-bone', <kóndulos> 'knuckle').
> > > Nevertheless the enlargement *kendH- 'to make compact,
> > > compress, squeeze' has a good parallel in *weidH- 'to make
> > > apart, divide, separate' from the adjectival root *wei- 'apart,
> > > disjoint, in two' (mostly in zero-grade *wi-, sometimes dual
> > > *wi:- < *wih-, IEW 1175, 1127). As a morphological parallel to
> > > *kóndHu- I regard Greek <kórthus> 'millstone' (Theophrastus) as
> > > derived from PIE *g^Her- 'short, small, fine-grained'; here the
> > > adjectival root (Pokorny's *g^Her-(6), IEW 443) is enlarged to
> > > *g^HerdH- 'to make small, grind' which in turn yields the
> > > agential *g^HórdHu- 'grinder, millstone', Proto-Greek
> > > *kHórtHu-, by Grassmann's Law <kórthus>. The same adjectival
> > > *g^Her- appears in two other archaic IE formations in Greek:
> > > *g^Hén-g^Hro- 'small-grained material', Greek <kégkhros>
> > > 'millet; fish-spawn'; *g^H´n.-g^Hru-, Grk. <kákhrus>
> > > 'winter-bud' (Thphr.), 'parched barley' (Aristophanes). The
> > > latter's variant <kágkhrus> is probably a cross between these
> > > forms.
> >
> > de Vries:
> > 'knoka schw. V. 'schlagen, prügeln',
> > nisl. hnoka 'unruhig sein', nnorw. knoka,
> > nschw. dial. knåka,
> > ndä. knuge 'drücken, klemmen'.
> > mhd. knochen 'knuffen' und
> > ae. cnocian, cnucian 'schlagen, stossen'.
> > vgl. knúi und knjúkr.
> >
> > usw. usw. usw.
> >
> > How can a root that behaves like that be considered IE?
>
> I already expressed doubt that everything referred to *ken- by
> Pokorny is really IE. The 'knoll' word fits poorly semantically,
> since it means more like 'swelling', and the 'knob' word has a
> geminated media; I'm willing to concede that many of these are NOT
> inherited by Gmc. from PIE the usual way. I think 'rye' both with
> and without -gg- came from an IE lg. of the Illyrian type (sorry,
> not Venetic)
> and will say more later; I suspect that both Kuhn's NWBlock lg. andPresumably you have bona fide Illyrian onomastics to back that up?
> Schrijver's lg. of gemm. are "really" NW Illyrian, with some loans
> from the West Mediterranean substrate.
> > > Verner and several contemporaries regarded 'hand' as connectedDon't forget to explain also why they,
> > > with the Gmc. strong verb *henþ- 'to capture' reflected in
> > > Goth. <frahinþan>, <-hanþ>, <-hunþans> 'id.', Swedish <hinna>
> > > 'to obtain, reach', Danish dialectal <hinne> 'id.', in which
> > > case *hanðu- would be the correct Gmc. form and my explanation
> > > would fail. More recently however Seebold saw "keine sichere
> > > Vergleichsmöglichkeit" between 'hand' and *henþ-. Such a
> > > connection would require an oxytone /o/-grade agent, PIE
> > > *kontú- 'catcher', to be formed from *kent-, then inherited
> > > into Gmc. in the sense 'hand'. This is, in my opinion, more
> > > difficult to justify morphologically and semantically than what
> > > I proposed above.
> >
> > Actually I considered connecting them, but outside IE, in the
> > donor language, whichever that is.
> >
> > Note that those Germanic nouns for which alternations show the
> > effect of Verner, smell funny too:
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/62159
> > which might lead one to believe that PPGmc had no mobile stress
> > in nouns, only in verbs, and those cases which which seem to have
> > had that only show the effect of loaning from language which did
> > have mobile stress in nouns. Note that *glas-(/*glar-) is one of
> > them, and that is suspected of being Venetic (as spoken by
> > Aestians).
>
> I'm working on 'glass', have some old papers to read. Regarding
> the long list of words with gramm. Wechsel, I'll pick a few and try
> to prove they are IE, inherited the usual way.
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/62525More like "(of the) Roman community" vel sim.
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/62535
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/64139
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/61079
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/59612
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/63465
>
> Mixed bag of memories. I missed the obvious problem the first time
> around with your reading Venetic <ka.n.ta ruma.n[.]na> as 'Roman
> tribe' or whatever.
> In <dona.s.to> the first <o> represents /o:/ (cf. Lat. <do:na:vit>)It doesn't have to. *Ruma is an old and/or by-form of Roma, cf. Etruscan Ruma, Arabic Rûm, Slavic Rim-.
> so <u> cannot represent /o:/ in the same position.
> It looks like <ka.n.ta> is a praenomen,No, it doesn't.
> and if we can't etymologize it, it won't help us with 'hand'.True, but we can.
> I've read all of Kuhn's papers that you posted except "letzteTry getting his 4-volume 'Kleine Schriften', if you can.
> Idg.", and comments on some will follow separately. I agree with
> many of his points, as you know.
> On the IE dog kennel, I consider both Lat. <canis> and Gmc.Yes, yes. We know now the dog came from China. I believe *k-n- "dog" is even one of Ruhlen's world language words. We must look east for the origin of that word. Its appearance in a culture expanding (because of the dog?) into river-borne nomadism is not incongruent.
> <hunda-> to be unrelated to Greek <kuo:n> and the rest. That's
> another posting.
> > In short, I see a semantic developmentWhile I'm at it on that root, I found some more suspected cognates
> > "carry, support" ->
> > "carrying pole/beam", and since there are two of those ->
> > "edge", and, used in warfare ->
> > "wing of battle formation" (remember the Roman caput porci, ON
> > svínfylking, battle formation of several cunei, the various
> > nations in an alliance fought separately beside each other,
> > cf. Caesar's description of Ariovitus' battle formation,
> > cf. Gmc *folk-, Russian polk "regiment") ->
> > "troop, people".
> > In that development the first element "carry, support" is found
> > only in Uralic, not in IE so we must look east for the donor.
>
> If we need a donor in the first place.