--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...> wrote:
>
> At 11:36:04 AM on Wednesday, March 3, 2010, Torsten wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> > <BMScott@> wrote:
>
> >> At 3:32:08 AM on Tuesday, March 2, 2010, Torsten wrote:
>
> >>> --- 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
>
> [...]
>
> >>> Kuhn mentions
> >>> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/62578
>
> [...]
>
> >>> see also his discussion in
> >>> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/62531
>
> >> You've still not answered it. None of this says anything
> >> about the 'swamp' set.
>
> > I have no idea what you are talking about. Would you be so
> > kind as to specify what you mean by your terms '-k set',
> > '-mp set' and 'swamp set', then I'll see if I can answer
> > your criticism?
>
> If it isn't obvious, your situation is indeed hopeless. You
> have, however, persuaded me that you really don't see the
> clear semantic distinction between the two sets.
I took a look in Pokorny, and found that he divided the groups as you described:
1)
'I. seu-, sew&- : su:- ,Saft, Feuchtes';
verbal: ,Saft ausdrücken' und ,regnen; rinnen',
in Weiterbildungen ,(Saft) schlürfen, saugen';
su-la:- ,Saft'.
1. Gr. húei ,es regnet', húo: ,lasse regnen' (*su:-yo:),
húetós ,starker Regen' (*suw-etos, wie niphetós);
alb. shi ,Regen' (*su:-);
toch. B swese ,Regen', su:-, swa:s- ,regnen';
zu húei vielleicht
húthlos (hústhlos, húslos Gramm.) m.
,leeres Geschwätz' (gleichsam ,eintönig tröpfelnd');
2. Ai. sunó:ti ,preßt aus, keltert' = av. hunaoiti ds.;
ai. sávana-m, savá- m. Kelterung des Soma',
sutá- ,gekeltert',
só:ma- = av. hauma- m. ,Soma';
ahd. sou, ags. séaw ,Saft',
isl. söggr ,feucht' (*sawwia-);
air. suth ,Saft, Milch' (*su-tu-s);
hierher wohl auch die FlN
gall. Sava, Savara, -ia und
(illyr.) Savus (*Sowos).
3. seu-d- in
ags. be-su:tian ,beschmutzen',
westfäl. sot ,Dreck';
aisl. su:t ,Sorge', syta ,trauern'.
4. Gutturalerw.: seuk-, su(:)k- und seug-, su(:)g-:
Lat. su:go:, -ere ,saugen';
lat. su:cus ,Saft',
cymr. sugno, mbret. sunaff, nbret. suna ds., sun ,Saft',
cymr. sugnedydd ,Pumpe'
(*seuk-n-; cymr. g aus dem lat. Lw. sug ,Saft'),
acymr. dissuncgnetic ,exanclata'
(morphologisch schwierige Gruppe);
ags. su:can, ndl. zuiken ,saugen';
ags. socian (*suco:n) ,einweichen, aufsaugen',
gesoc n. ,das Saugen';
aisl. su:ga (sju:ga) ,saugen', sog n. ,das Saugen',
ags. as. ahd. su:gan ,saugen',
Kaus. norw. dial. søygja, mhd. söugen ,säugen',
mhd. suc, soc, g. soges und souc, -ges ,Saft',
ags. sogeða m. ,Schluck';
lett. sùkt ,saugen';
apr. suge f. ,Regen'.
5. l-Formantien:
gr. húle: ,Kot, Schlamm', húlízo: ,filtere, kläre';
ai. su:ra- m. berauschender Trank'; súra: ,Branntwein',
av. hura: ,Kumys'
(wogul. sara, syrj. sur aus dem Iranischen) =
lit. lett. sulà ,abfließender Baumsaft'
(mit u: lett. su:lât ,siepen'),
apr. sulo ,geronnene Milch';
ags. sol n. ,Schlamm, Pfütze',
ahd. mnd. sol ds.,
ags. sylian ,beschmutzen',
as. sulwian, ahd. sullen ds.,
nhd. sühlen, suhlen ,sich im Kot wälzen';
got. bi-sauljan ,beflecken',
norw. søyla ds.
6. seup-, seub-:
ai. sú:pa- m. ,Brühe, Suppe';
aisl. su:pa, ags. su:pan, ahd. su:fan ,schlürfen, trinken, saufen',
su:f ,Brühe, Suppe',
mhd. suf, sof ,Suppe',
ags. sype m. ,das Einsaugen',
aisl. sopi m., ags. sopa ,Schluck',
vollstufig ahd. souf ,Suppe',
aisl. saup n. ,Buttermilch';
ags. sopp f. ,eingetunkte Bissen',
mnd. (daraus mhd.) soppe, suppe',
ahd. sopha, soffa ,Brühe,
auch mit eingeweichten Schnitten; Bodensatz';
got. supo:n ,würzen'=
ahd. soffo:n ds. (eig. ,in Brühe eintunken');
mhd. su:ft m., mnd. sucht ,Seufzer',
ahd. su:ft(e)o:n, mhd. siuften, siufzen ,seufzen';
aisl. ags. sufl n. ,Zukost',
as. suval, ahd. suvil(i), -a ,sorbiuncula';
mnd. su:vel, ndl. zuivel ,der Buttergehalt der Milch';
aksl. sUs-o,, -ati, Iter. sysati ,saugen' wohl aus *sup-s-.'
2.
'swomb(h)o-s ,schwammig, porös'.
Gr. somphós ,schwammig, porös' =
germ. *swamba- in
ahd. swamp, -bes m. ,Schwamm'; daneben
germ. *swampu- (idg. *swombu-) und
*swamma- in
aisl. suo,ppr ,Schwamm; Ball (nach der Gestalt)',
mnd. swamp, -pes ,Schwamm, Pilz' und
got. swamm Akk. ,(Wasch-) Schwamm',
ags. swamm m. ,Pilz',
mnd. svam, -mmes ,Schwamm; Pilz';
von schwammigem Boden:
engl. swamp ,Sumpf;
westfäl. swampen ,auf- und niedergehen, von schwammigem Boden',
ablautend mhd. sumpf ,Sumpf' =
aisl. soppr ,Ball', norw. auch ,Pilz'.'
I'll add this:
3.
'swem- ,sich bewegen', im Germ. meist ,schwimmen'.
Air. to-senn- ,verfolgen' (*swem-d-ne-),
Verbalnomen tofunn, wohl zu:
norw. svamla phantasieren',
svamra ,umherirren, schwärmen';
aisl. svim(m)a, symja
(Prät. svamm summum und svam svo,:mum) ,schwimmen',
ahd. as. ags. swimman ds.;
Kaus. mhd. swemmen ,schwimmen lassen',
nhd. schwemmen; afries. swammia, mhd. swamen ,schwimmen',
isl. norw. svamla, sumla ,plätschern',
got. swumsl n. ,Teich';
aisl. sund n. ,das Schwimmen; Meerenge, Sund'
(d. i. ,*noch überschwimmbar'),
syndr ,schwimmfähig', ags. sund n. Schwimmfähigkeit',
poet. ,See, Wasser',
mnd. sunt (-d-) ,Meerenge' (nhd. Sund); anders über
nhd. Sund Kluge-Götze 16 780.'
It's obvious that the ablaut here is (seen from the PIE perspective)
*-we-/*-wo-/*-u- (not *-we-/*-wo-/*-wu- which is analogically reshaped). That ablaut can't have been caused by anything phonological, it is the result of ablaut being extended by analogy from the phonologically based rule
PPIE *-á-/*´-a-/*-a-´ -> PIE *-é-/*´-o-/*-Ø-´
to
PPIE *-í-/*´-i-/*-i-´ -> PIE *-Yé-/*´-Yo-/*-i-´
PPIE *-ú-/*´-u-/*-u-´ -> PIE *-Wé-/*´-Wo-/*-u-´
(cf. for the long vowels
PPIE *-í:-/*´-i:-/*-i:-´ -> PIE *-éY-/*´-oY-/*-i-´
PPIE *-ú:-/*´-u:-/*-u:-´ -> PIE *-éW-/*´-oW-/*-u-´
)
which means that the *swem- verb was borrowed by Germanic and Celtic from the ar-/ur- language in the form *sum- <- *suN- <- *saN- (note ON sym-ja) and reshaped as a strong class III verb. The resulting spurious -w- also infiltrated some nominal forms, which resulted in the mixture of forms in su- and swo- in 2., which prevented Pokorny from placing 2. among the variants of 1. where it obviously belongs semantically (cf. subgroups 1, 3 and 5), despite Brian's protestations.
>
> >>>> 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.
>
> >> You've signally failed to demonstrate this.
>
> > I've failed to demonstrate that Kuhn, Kuiper and Schrijver
> > connected the words with labial with those with velar
> > auslaut? Or what?
>
> You've failed to demonstrate that K, K, and S connected the
> words that you want to connect. Are you unable to
> distinguish the general principle from the specific
> application?
Well, it's true K, K and S don't mention the words in Pokorny's 'swamp' entry, where he has placed them for the reasons I mentioned although they don't belong there.
> >>>> 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.
>
> >> So you're blind. I reserve judgement on them, since we
> >> have as yet no evidence that they agree with you.
>
> > But when your staff comes back with sufficient evidence,
> > you wíll pass judgment on them? You are a strange little
> > man.
>
> I have no intention of looking: you're the one making the
> claim that they combine these various squishy s- words.
>
Okay.
> >> [...]
>
> >>>>>> 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 you think so. That has no bearing on the facts.
>
> > Okay, so what I think my own attitude is towards my proposals
> > is illusionary, whereas what you think it is is fact?
> > Where do you get these insights into my thought processes
> > that are denied to me?
>
> I don't care what your thought processes are: I'm talking
> about your actual behavior.
No, you were talking about my supposed convictions.
Torsten