From: Torsten
Message: 65759
Date: 2010-01-26
>I assume one of the transmission languages was the language of geminates (which I assume is the same as the ar-/ur- language), and that type of alternation is included the defining alternations for that language.
> > > > > 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).
> >
> > t > s is a weird consonant alternation?
>
> Like I just said, it's unmotivated, therefore weird (to see it in
> this supposed word, not in general).
> > And yes, it must. And?That is assuming tea/chai is a typical wanderwort which it isn't, since its two forms were borrowed into written languages, and their propagation since then is thus documented. Here is a real wanderwort from Pokorny:
>
> Precisely the point I was making: wanderwords such as "tea" do not
> require assuming any sound laws just for the purpose of their
> propagation.
> Yours does. Making assumptions = minus points. ShouldYou obviously have a beef with Pokorny and Prellwitz. Please keep me out of it.
> be elementary.
> > > > > > > "hand",'Wing' has the most diverse explanation in DEO, de Vries and Skeat. Pokorny doesn't seem to know the word. It is not at all clear that the 'limb' sense is the original. I suspect a relationship with the *wang- "side (of river); meadow" word.
> > > > > > 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".
> >
> > 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').
>
> That's still "limb" > "side" too. "Wing" originally means "limb"
> and its meaning is extended to the side of an army.
> Try again.I could arraign such forms as
> > > > > > > Also, only the first of those is an innovation by anyWhat specific meaning and in where? Please be more specific.
> > > > > > > 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.
> >
> > You 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.
>
> Sounds better.
>
> > No doubt some languages would use existing words, but others used
> > the new one.
>
> Yes, that sounds fine too. But it does not seem that this actual
> specific meaning ever surfaces in the words you have in there.
> So you have to assume it. More minus points.???
> > > > Note that it is involved in the "long" sense.A root in *dl-, which is very rare combination in PIE. Therefore it is tempting to connect it with other PIE roots in *dl-
> > >
> > > I have no idea what you mean by that.
> > >
> > Pokorny here
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/65525
>
> A root meaning "long", so?
> > and connected to 'tongue' by someYes. So?
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/65531
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/65530
>
> Again with trying to turn contesting derivation patterns into one
> set.
> "Tongue" could perhaps come from "long",Unlikely. "Long" may be argued to be a property, but not a characteristic, thus not a defining property of "tongue".
> or it could come from an ethnonym,For the record, I didn't argue that.
> but getting "long" from "tongue" is again all backwards.As true as for the opposite direction, and, further, I didn't argue that.
> Getting "long" from "an arrangement of soldiers" is alsoYou misunderstand again. The basic distinction in military disciple, as manifested in the command language of parades is between being directly subordinated to the will of a superior, and being "on your own time" (within limits, of course). The mode-changing commands are 'Attention' and 'At ease'. For an army, getting through the landscape in a single file is done on your own time, so to speak, like the legions of Varus did at Kalkriese. Calling that formation, or rather non-formation "an arrangement of soldiers" is therefore misleading. It is, if anything, a lack of arrangement.
> completely unrealistic.
> Basic vocabulary does not tend to come from sophisticated culturalThat is generally assumed, and I think that's wrong. Vocabularies abound with words having suffered a sociological deroute.
> concepts.
> Your assumed developments are on the same level as /kokakola/A better example is "dirty white"
> ending up as "red".
> I don't see you even trying to explain there how a single *L couldI assume you already know that the /L/ is meant to denote an unvoiced /l/. That's a rather rare phoneme, and tends to get substituted with exactly those combination when words containing it are loaned. Eg. the Welsh placename Llanberis is rendered in English as /klanberis/, /hlanberis/ or /lanberis/. The Spanish chose the digraph -tl- to represent Nahuatl /L/.
> yield all of *g *gl *dVl *d *l etc.
> That has to rake up some half a dozen assumptions at least.No assumptions, those are all documented IRL.
> There's no semantic nor phonological basis at all for merging allI conclude there is.
> this into one set.
>No, this is part of the proposal.
> > > > So it has to do with ordered vs. unordered (single file) march
> > > > through the landscape.
> > >
> > > More assumptions.
> > It's the way to do it.What 'this'? Which of *kaN-t- and *Lun,-? These were a pair of antonyms, and if you confuse them, of course you get confusion. What's your point?
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marching
>
> First this was supposed to refer to unordered masses, now it's
> supposed to also refer to the military too, and also in a specific
> formation this time.
> Not to say that this particular meaning also seems to beWhich particular meaning?
> unattested.
> The assumptions just keep piling up with no end in sight; andTry to read this posting carefully. It might reduce the number of assumptions you maske so you won't have to puke.
> that's why Occam would puke.