dive (was Re: Sos-)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "bmscotttg" <BMScott@...> wrote:

>
>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Torsten" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, johnvertical@ wrote:
>


> [...]
>
> >> The -k set is limited to "suck", and the -mp set is limited to
> >> "swamp". There's no overlap between these and I see no grounds
> >> to connect them.
>
> > My grounds for combining the 'labial series' and the 'velar
> > series' is that I claim the root they descend from is from the
> > combined ar-/ur- and geminate language, and both the ar-/ur-
> > language and the geminate language, according to their respective
> > authors, have labial/velar alternation in auslaut.
>
> You've not answered the objection.

Yes, I have.
Schrijver:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/62677
'Another etymon that may originally have belonged to the language of
geminates is *sugh-, *sug-, *su:k- 'to suck', which is found in Italic
(Latin su:gere 'to suck', su:cus 'sap'), Celtic (Welsh sugno 'to suck'
< *seuk-, Old Irish súgid < *su:g(h)-), Baltic (Latvian sùkt 'to
suck') and, notably, Germanic (Old English su:can, Dutch zuiken <
*su:g-, Old English socian 'to soak' < *sug-; Old English and Old High
German su:gan 'to suck' < *su:k/gh-, with various ablaut grades; and
also Germanic *su:p- > Germ. saufen, *supp- > German Suppe, etc.). An
interchange of voiced and voiceless velar stops and also of velar and
labial stops is one of the characteristics of the language of
geminates, as Kuiper has pointed out.'.

Kuhn mentions
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/62578
'kriechen und nd. krupen,
streichen und streifen,
tauchen und taufen,
nd. Siek und Siepen "feuchte Bodensenke",
engl. shrink und hd. schrumpfen,
Strunk und Strumpf,
got. *auhns/ altschw. ugn und dt. Ofen,
an. ylgr "Wölfin" und ulfr "Wolf",
dt. leihen und bleiben'
although he doesn't go so far as to directly assign the words to his 'other Old European language'; see also his discussion in
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/62531

> That labial/velar alternation
> is irrelevant if there's no good reason to combine the sets in
> the first place,

The people who connected them in the first place are Kuhn, Kuiper and Schrijver, from whom I've taken it over.

> and the clear semantic distinction between the
> two sets is hardly a reason to combine them.

There isn't any 'clear semantic distinction'. Kuhn, Kuiper and Schrijver did not see it, nor do I.

> [...]
>
> >>>> The Baltic Finnic direct descendant *säNki primarily means
> >>>> "stubble".
> >>>> A later development of sense is "a patch of field or garden",
>
> >>> From "stubble"? Why would you want to have your garden there, of
> >>> all places?
>
> >> "stubble in field" (attested, primary)
> >> "a section of field which has stubble (has been harvested)"
> >> (attested as the compound _sänkipelto_)
> >> "a section of field or garden" (attested)
>
> >> Also, straws used to be used as a mattress filling. That
> >> possibly cuts some corners: in a bed (as opposed to just
> >> sleeping on a bench, or on the floor) one would in fact be
> >> sleeping on something stubbly.
>
> > That's pretty horrible, semantically.
>
> Certainly no worse than many of yours, and the connection of 'bed'
> with 'section of garden' does have the obvious Gmc. parallel.

That's true. I was commenting on the stubble-filled mattress.

> [...]
>
> > > I keep seeing this apparent principle "if they have some
> > > resemblance, it cannot be a coincidence" behind your (and some
> > > others') reasoning, but this is a false conviction.
>
> > That conviction of yours is false.
>
> Not really: it *is* the way you operate in fact, whatever you may
> claim in theory.

I think I know better than both of you how I reason. Of course the resemblances may in principle be coincidences.

> > I don't exclude the possibility that my proposal is wrong, but i
> > won't accept that it is until someone proves it.
>
> Which of course can never happen.
>

You guys are just frustrated that you can't come up with a counter-argument.

> [...]
>
> >>>>> The alternation is also manifested as a/o:, BTW.
>
> >>>> Which alternation, and where?
>
> >>> Germanic: cake/cookie, hat/hood etc and the whole Class VI
> >>> strong verbs
> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_strong_verb#Class_6
>
> >> What makes you think this is the same alternation and not a
> >> different one?
>
> > Occam. What makes you think it is a different one?
>
> Ockham's Razor isn't quite so easily applied as that. You require
> an assumption that the contexts are related, and it's not clear
> that this is simpler than the alternative.

Sorry, sloppy thinking. It's the extended version of Occam which applies, such as extended by Popper: the theory should explain the most with least.

> >> That looks like it would be easiest to explain from a substratal
> >> *o (Gmc, lacking that, would substitute either *a to retain the
> >> quantity, or *o: to retain the quality).
>
> > The easiest is no doubt to see it as reflecting an alternation
> > either o/o: or a/a: in the substrate, since both would become
> > a/o:.
>
> 'No doubt' is a statement of opinion.

Brian hasn't forgotten the 'clearlying' episode. He pounces at once. Yes, I also have opinions.

> >> And isn't "cook" from Latin anyway?
>
> Yes, but it's not related to <cookie>, which is probably a
> borrowing of Du. <koekje>, diminutive of <koek> 'cake'.
>
> [...]
>
> >> No, one vowel change does not need to imply others.
>
> > A plain, non-nasalised vowel can't change much without bumping
> > into the other plain, non-nasalised vowels, which means they have
> > to move too, generally in the same direction within the vowel
> > triangle.
>
> Or merge.

If so, it's with its next neighbor, which means long travels like a > u is not possible.

> [...]
>
> >>> Why would I propose a mechanism that is possible but not really
> >>> reflected in the data?
>
> >> Because that's pretty much all I've ever seen you propose.
>
> > You keep saying that without substantiating it.
>
> Not true, though you may be unable to see why we think that your
> proposed mechanisms often aren't really reflected in the data.

That is true. I am.


Torsten