From: Torsten
Message: 65071
Date: 2009-09-20
>I know.
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Torsten" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "frabrig" <frabrig@> wrote:
>
> >> In search for a Sarmatian etymon for his invented Iazigyan word
> >> **far-ang 'enemy, one of the others',
>
> > actually, invented word hve only one asterisk in linguistics,
>
> Trask, _The Dictionary of Historical and Comparative Linguistics_,
> s.v. <asterisk>:
>
> Some linguists prefer to use a double asterisk for certain
> purposes: to indicate that a proposed form has been reconstructed
> on the basis of other forms that are themselves reconstructed,
> to mark a suggested reconstruction as doubtful, or to distinguish
> a form as actually impossible rather than as merely non-existent
> or unrecorded.
>Oh, how delightfully nasty! How long did you work on that sentence?
> We may generously suppose that Francesco's double asterisk is
> somewhere between the second and third of these possibilities.
> > The problem is, however, that the word exists in Germanic bothYou derive loans in your bank?
> > with -ank and -ak, and does so creating an ungodly mess such that
> > an honest linguist will refuse to create some common Germanic
> > descent for it.
>
> >> Therefore, your invented Sarmatian ethnonym should, in case, be
> >> reconstructed as **fala:k(a) or, at best, **fara:k(a). Would you
> >> derive Germanic 'frank' from such a word?
>
> > You don't derive loans, as you very well know.
>
> This is a perfectly good use of 'derive' in its everyday sense.
>The really reasonable question is: 'If have nothing to contribute in linguistics, why open your mouth at all?'
> > Now who would try to unite all this under the hat of 'Germanic'?
> > Not me, for sure.
>
> 'Who would try to unite all this?' seems a more reasonable question.