Re: Nordwestblock, Germani, and Grimm's law

Sorry for not combining this with the previous reply.

> > > 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).
>
> 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.

So you get out of assuming one sound change by making some assumptions about the transfer route involved. I'm not sure if that's helping.

Also I recall the phonetically unconvincing *kunt vs. Uralic *kun´s´i "urine" vs. Baltic *ku:Si "pubic hair" (which doesn't even involve a plain *s at any point) as one "example" of this change. Was there ever any more?

> > Precisely the point I was making: wanderwords such as "tea" do
> > not require assuming any sound laws just for the purpose of their
> > propagation.
>
> 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:

Shifting goalposts. I've not called that stuff Wanderwörts, and I would prefer not to.

> You obviously have a beef with Pokorny and Prellwitz. Please keep me out of it.

Can't do, if your approach is to appeal to "the same privilege of exemption they enjoy". And it seems that I would not grant the words YOU were referring to any "privilege of exemption". Most older etymological dictionaries contain plenty of invalid comparisions.

> > > 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.
>
> What specific meaning and in where? Please be more specific.

"Group of civilians tasked with providing a certain number of cavalry" for *LuN-. A meaning attested anywhere at all, or made up by you?

> > > > > Note that it is involved in the "long" sense.
> > > >
> > > > 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?
>
> A root in *dl-, which is very rare combination in PIE. Therefore it is tempting to connect it with other PIE roots in *dl-

Non sequitur. Therefore it is tempting to consider that they have the same source (as in some substrate), but it does not follow they should have any further connection: since we are alreddy assuming this was a perfectly normal sound in our substrate, there is no problem in having more than one root that has it.

> > Basic vocabulary does not tend to come from sophisticated
> > cultural concepts.
>
> That is generally assumed, and I think that's wrong. Vocabularies
> abound with words having suffered a sociological deroute.

Vocabularies in general, yes. Swadesh-list-level basic vocabulary, no.

> > I don't see you even trying to explain there how a single *L
> > could 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.

All those substitutions are attested elsewhere, you mean? The assumptions are that this or that particular substitution happened. "Possible sound change" is still different from "sound change for which there is evidence".

> > > > > So it has to do with ordered vs. unordered (single file)
> > > > > march through the landscape.
> > > >
> > > > More assumptions.
>
> No, this is part of the proposal.

Same thing. All these assumptions are part of your proposal.

> > > It's the way to do it.
> > > 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.
>
> What 'this'? Which of *kaN-t- and *Lun,-?

The latter, if I've stayed on track. You're trying to derive *LuN > "unordered group" > "marching soldiers" > "line" > "long", right?

> > Not to say that this particular meaning also seems to be
> > unattested.
>
> Which particular meaning?

"Soldiers marching in a line".

John Vertical