From: Brian M. Scott
Message: 65905
Date: 2010-03-02
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "bmscotttg" <BMScott@...>You've still not answered it. None of this says anything
> 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 noYou've signally failed to demonstrate this.
>> 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 theSo you're blind. I reserve judgement on them, since we have
>> 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.
>>>> I keep seeing this apparent principle "if they haveOf course you think so. That has no bearing on the facts.
>>>> 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.