From: Torsten
Message: 65757
Date: 2010-01-25
>t > s is a weird consonant alternation? And yes, it must. And?
> > > > > > > What privilege where? I'm not aware of any that require
> > > > > > > a handful of idiosyncratic innovations every other step.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > These do
> > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wanderwort
> > > > >
> > > > > Nope, not seeing anything out of the ordinary there. Would
> > > > > you care to elaborate?
> > > >
> > > > Of course the transmission of those Wanderwörter contains
> > > > nothing 'out of the ordinary'; we're used to them. Could you
> > > > be a bit more specific?
> > >
> > > Chiefly, no weird consonant alternations. *tSai never becomes
> > > /dZia/, or *kAhvi never becomes /kubbi/, etc.
> >
> > None in mine either.
>
> Um, no, they're full of that stuff. *kaNt- > *kansa for one example
> (the sound change t > s is not required by any receptor language
> and must be added as an assumption).
> > > The burden of proof for defining "privilege of exemption" moreI don't understand what you are saying here.
> > > specifically is on you I believe.
> >
> > I don't know how you read my sentences. 'the ... privilege ... of
> > exemption from that stuff' is a definition of that privilege.
>
> If you're only referring back to my comments, it then seems you're
> asking me to proov a negativ.
> > > > > "hand",But it shows the specific connection between "hand" and "side". The direction "side" > "limb" is shown in the metaphor "wing" used in an attacking army (cf. Latin 'ala', German 'Flügel').
> > > > See the Epimakhov, Koryakova quote in
> > > > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/65159
> > > > With a societal division like that, and with a metaphor of
> > > > the wings (note the English metaphor) as arms/hands of the
> > > > main body, you get an easy semantic slide "side" <-> "hand"
> > >
> > > Yes, "limb" > "side" is well attested (also "my right hand"
> > > etc.) However I do not like the opposite direction of
> > > development at all. Much too specific without motivation. Tons
> > > of things are at the sides of something.
> >
> > But in English, it's specifically 'left/right hand side'. No
> > other bodypart is used.
>
> That's still the direction "limb" > "side".
> > > > > Also, only the first of those is an innovation by anyYou misunderstand. I was pointing out that such words would be irrelevant to the new concept of placing the responsibility for providing a certain number of cavalry on a particular group or area. No doubt some languages would use existing words, but others used the new one.
> > > > > stretch.
> > > >
> > > > The second goes with the first as its antonym (if they were
> > > > once both adjectives): ordered mass vs. unordered mass.
> > >
> > > A concept of "group" in general would have existed even before.
> >
> > Before the necessity of organizing people and land according to
> > the demand for 100 cavalry?
>
> Yes. "Family". "Tribe". "Humans (of any tribe)". "Herd of animals".
> "A group of objects of any sort". "A group of hunters". And so on.
> > > I don't see why some existing word couldn't have beenAnd in many languages it probably was, but in some it wasn't.
> > > appropriated for the negativly defined sense.
> > Note that it is involved in the "long" sense.Pokorny here
>
> I have no idea what you mean by that.
>
> > So it has to do with ordered vs. unordered (single file) marchIt's the way to do it.
> > through the landscape.
>
> More assumptions.
> > > After the introduction of *kants, all the older "group" wordsAntonyms are often borrowed together.
> > > would have by default been "unordered".
> >
> > But they would not have meant "the totality of the people,
> > regardless of the ordering".
>
> ? Of course they could have. No reason not to.