From: Torsten
Message: 66617
Date: 2010-09-18
> > > My opinion is that the bumpkins used a rustic Sabine LatinTrue.
> > > dialect, and the sacrificial priests used a closely related
> > > dialect. I see no compelling reason to postulate a "sacred
> > > sociolect".
> >
> > But you just did that yourself? Actually, I never used the word
> > 'sociolect', but okay, if the sacrificial priests spoke a dialect
> > closely related to a rustic Sabine Latin as you claim, (which I
> > did too) then they spoke a 'sacred sociolect'.
>
> You spoke of "socio-allophones" which amount to distinctions of
> "sociolect".
> My position is that the observed distinctions are dialectal, notWhy can't they be both? Sociolectal in the city, dialectal in the sticks?
> "sociolectal".
> We have true Latin <Dia:na>, <fla:men Dia:lis>, andWhy?
> <Die:spiter> beside Sabinizing <Juppiter>. What this indicates is
> that some of the Roman priesthoods were traditionally Latin while
> others were traditionally Sabine. If we postulate a Sabinizing
> "sacred sociolect" for <Juppiter>, we must also have a true Latin
> "sacred sociolect" for <Die:spiter> et al.,
> and these "sociolects" are phonologically indistinguishable from theYes, so why assume such a Latin sociolect?
> ordinary dialects with their everyday profane words.
> > > > >Now that would be an argument against a proposal that *-eÅ in Italic split into *en- and *ew- after loaning to Etruscan, not to a proposal that the split happened before that, in Italic or before.
> > > > > [...]
> > > > >
> > > > > I think E-M are on the right track with root-extensions.
> > > >
> > > > I think they're not. Semantics-less 'extensions' should not be
> > > > used in the description of a language. I think it's *-eÅ (and
> > > > a Rozwadowski's change variant *daÅ- in Germanic *dag- etc ?),
> > > > which showns it's non-IE.
> > >
> > > The extensions have semantics, but they are difficult to
> > > determine at this time-depth.
> >
> > The two presumptive extensions both change a root meaning "light,
> > day; god" into stems meaning "light, day; god". They are
> > semantics-less and there is no amount of deferring the question
> > which will turn them into anything else.
>
> No, I believe *dei-w- and *dei-n- were originally distinguished in
> meaning. I suspect the Jovian reformation commandeered *deiw-
> 'bright' (applied as an epithet to the moon, etc.) and replaced the
> old name of the daytime sky-god, *dein-, while elevating him to the
> position of supreme deity. I regard Etruscan as providing a clouded
> window into the pre-Jovian state of affairs; while it is not an IE
> language, it contains loanwords from one or more pre-Italic IE
> languages, and some of its divine names can be explained this way.
> Etr. Tin was identified with Zeus, and Tiu or Tiv was the Moon (also
> an appellative 'month'). I consider these to have been borrowed
> from *dein- and *deiw-. Also Etr. Usil 'the Sun' corresponds to
> Sabine <ausel> and presumably reflects pre-Jovian *h2ews-el-. My
> view is that the first IE-speakers to reach this area had not been
> influenced by the Jovian reformation, and they converted the
> Etruscans to this older form of IE religion. Centuries later, this
> religion was Hellenized, and that is what we find on mirror-scenes
> and the like, but some pre-Jovian relics are still identifiable.
> > > Nevertheless I think *-g^H- clearly means 'inside, within,Erh, us scoffers don't recollect as well as the scoffees.
> > > etc.'.
> >
> > Where? What? How?
>
> E.g. *sneh2- 'to float, swim, be wet', *sneh2g^H- 'to dive in,
> plunge' (you may recall scoffing at my explanation of the river
> Na:r/Nera about two years ago);
> *bHer- 'to carry', *bHerg^H- 'to carry inside', whence 'to protect,In Danish and Swedish you get a syllable less in the present of open-syllable stem verbs than in those with a closed-syllable root. Therefore many verbs closed-syllable verbs have an open syllable by-form, eg.
> defend'.