From: Torsten
Message: 67904
Date: 2011-07-08
>Where my *λaN- "wet mass, brine pond, beach flotsam, dead jellyfish, vitreous body of the eye" also belongs, the origin of i.a. Germanic *glas- "glass", Russian glaz "eye" etc, cf
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Torsten" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "bmscotttg" <bm.brian@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Torsten" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <bm.brian@>
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >> At 1:41:47 AM on Monday, June 27, 2011, Torsten wrote:
> > >
> > > >>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski
> > > >>> <gpiotr@> wrote:
> > >
> > > >>>> W dniu 2011-06-26 08:09, Torsten pisze:
> > >
> > > >>>>> Trick question: what would happen to PIE *stVló- in
> > > >>>>> Oscan?
> > >
> > > >>>> Two things wouldn't: *o > a: and k > g
> > >
> > > >>> That's true for a regular derivation within PIE; I suspect
> > > >>> that both Latin (st)locus and Oscan sla(a)gi- are
> > > >>> substrate words, related to those Boutkan discusses here:
> > > >>> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/61680
> > > >>> the semantics of which, "swamp" etc, would match the Oscan
> > > >>> sense of "border";
> > >
> > > >> Only if one deliberately distorts the attested semantics by
> > > >> choosing the most atypical datum.
> > >
> > > > You're not expressing yourself very clearly. Do you mean to
> > > > say that "border" is the most atypical sense of the two
> > > > attested senses "border" and "region" of the three known
> > > > occurrences of *sla(a)gi-?
> > >
> > > Of course not. I am obviously talking about 'those Boutkan
> > > discusses here ... the semantics of which, "swamp" etc, would
> > > match the Oscan sense of "border". The semantics of that group
> > > do *not* match 'border': 'swamp, morass' is clearly an outlier.
> > >
> > > The repetition of the word 'semantics' and the fact that it was
> > > the subject of the clause to which I was replying should have
> > > made this obvious, and even a cursory review of Boutkan's data
> > > would have confirmed the obvious.
> >
> > Only three obviouses and one clearly, but it's a short text, of
> > course.
> >
> > You should take a look at de Vries' proposal below Boutkan's
> > article ('das bewerfender hauswand' should be 'das bewerfen der
> > hauswand'), who relates them all to the material used in
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wattle_and_daub
> > construction, basically clayey mud, making *slagan the act of
> > daubing, slinging the daub onto the wattle. Villages in flat
> > territory were bordered by terrain which couldn't be cultivated
> > because it was too wet, ie. muddy.
>
>
> from JSTOR:
>
> John Phelps
> INDO-EUROPEAN INITIAL sl
>
>
> 'This article' treats of Indo-European initial sl in relation to
> initial stl found in some of the derived languages. Since we discuss
> only the initial position that position will be understood whenever
> sl or stl is mentioned.
> The theory is that sl is the original sound, retained by some
> languages, but which in some other languages became stl by a
> post-Indo-European intercalation of t.
>
> 1. A survey of the vocabularies of the various Indo-European
> languages, ancient and modern, discloses a remarkable, and, it
> seems, hitherto unnoticed fact:
> The northern belt of languages - Gadhelic, Gaulish, Teutonic,
> Baltic, Slavic (except Bohemian), Armenian, and Indo-Iranian - have,
> and always have had, words in sl in some form, but none in stl. The
> southern belt - Greek, Latin, Romance,2 and Brythonic - have not,
> and historically never have had, any word in sl, but many in stl and
> its derivatives. Moreover, sl is found in the reconstructed
> Indo-European and stl is not.3
> As a tentative explanation of this geographical cleavage we may
> assume that the original Indo-European speakers in their northern
> home spoke sl; and that those offshoots who migrated southerly to
> the shores of the Mediterranean Sea lost the facility for
> pronouncing initial sl as the result of contact with some
> autochthonous people to whom sl was unknown, and who pronounced it
> as stl.4
> This result of contact with the sea-folk5 is borne out by the fact
> that Oscan (and inferentially Umbrian), which never reached the sea
> until historic times, retained sl, while the other Italic dialects
> on the coasts spoke only stl.1 Bohemian has the original sl together
> with stl, includÂing doublets in sl/stl, indicating an originally sl
> speech with local survivals of an importation of the stl influence
> through Venetic conÂtacts. A few words in Polish and East Slavic are
> explainable as loans from Bohemian. As to Brythonic we may assume
> that it was pre-historically in contact with the Mediterranean.' A
> few skl (never stl) words in English dialect are of Brythonic
> survival. Some English sl influence may be traced in Welsh and
> Cornish.
>
> 2. Whatever may have been the real prehistoric geographical and
> cultural relations of these speakers, it is the phonetic relation
> between the two groups of sounds, sl and stl, that indicates that
> the t is interÂcalary. The articulation of sl is effected wholly by
> tongue-movements. The tongue, in changing from the s to the l
> position, performs the diffiÂcult feat of instantaneously and
> completely reversing its shape. In the s position the tip is down,
> the sides are expanded, the surface is concave and the mass of the
> organ is raised. In the l position the tip is up, the sides
> contracted, the surface convex and the mass lowered. The audiÂtory
> effect of this is that the tip closes the orifice for the s sound at
> the precise instant that the sides open the orifices for the l
> sound. When these complicated movements are all performed with
> synchronous agility, accompanied with the requisite breath, the
> sound sl is heard. But if there is a lack of synchrony or
> coordination in any of the moveÂments some other sound must
> necessarily intervene. Now, the tip is the quickest and most agile
> part of the tongue, and a lack of synchrony first results in the
> upward click of the tip, bringing the tongue into the t position,
> before the contraction of the sides has opened the orifices for the
> l sound. In this uncoordinated movement t is midway between s and l,
> and the intercalation of t is a necessary consequence. Hence the
> resulting combination of sounds is stl. In other words, stl is a
> natural result of the effort to pronounce sl by a tongue
> undisciplined to the mechanics of the movement.
> For example, the simple sound-imitation slop, slap, which could be
> formed at any linguistic epoch for the sound made by striking flat
> surÂfaces, hence for flat things and derived senses, is found in
> Latin proÂnounced stloppus, 'the sound made by slapping the distended
> cheek'; and in Breton stlapad 'coup de main, tape', stlapa, v.
> 'flanquer'.
> This stl, once fixed in a language as a permanent combination of
> sounds, becomes itself, in turn, subject to sundry changes or
> developÂments :
>
> 3. The t sometimes shifts to a palatal stop, whence Vulg. Lat
> *scloppus (Ital. schioppo 'a gun') and Breton sklapan 'flanquer'.
> So, the doublets:
> Lat. stlis/sclis 'strife',
> Breton stlabez/sklabez 'ordure',
> stlej 'qui traine' / sklejal 'trainer',
> stleug 'etrier' / skleug 'marchepied d'une voiture',
> Boh. stloustnouti/skloustnouti 'fett werden'.
> Lat. stl became everywhere scl in later Latin and Romance; but it
> never reverts to sl.8
>
> 4. A further shift of the stop results in spl, which is purely
> analogous since the lips have no part in the phonetic change of s to
> l. So,
> Ir. slaodim 'I drag',
> OBret. stloit 'trainer',
> OFr. esclaon 'traineau', beside splaon, id.;
> Boh. stlesknouti 'zusammenschlagen',
> tleskatý = splesklý = pleskatý 'flachgedrückt'.
> - Gr. ÏÏειλάμεναι· ÏÏελλάμεναι, Hesych.;
> ÏÏαλει~Ïα· ÏÏολει~Ïα, Id.
> (See below, 7, for vowel insert).
>
> 5. In all these forms, viz: stl, skl (scl), spl, the s is sometimes
> dropped, perhaps by a delayed breath impulse, resulting in tl, kl
> (cl) pl. It would seem that tl is always derived from stl; but it
> cannot be said that kl (cl) pl are always derived from skl (scl) spl
> respectively. However, before assigning to Indo-European any word in
> tl, kl (cl) or pl, its posÂsible origin from stl should be examined.
> - Ex.:
> Boh. Å¡lapÄje 'der Schritt',
> tlapna 'der Tritt',
> tlap, tlapa 'die Pfote, Tappe, der Fuss',
> tlapot 'das Getappe '
> - E slush,
> Boh. stloustnouti 'fett werden',
> tloušt 'die Dicke',
> Pol. tluszcz 'fat, grease',
> tlusty (adj.) 'fat'.
> - Bret. stlapa, dial. sklapan, 'flanquer',
> Pol. klopot 'clatter of footsteps' (cf. tlapot),
> Fr. clapoter 'to clack the tongue',
> OFr. clop 'boiteux' (Fr. éclopé), clopeter, clopier, 'boiter',
> Vulg. Lat. cloppus 'lame'.
> - Boh. splesklý = pleskatý, supra.
>
> 6. Words in tl, (kl, pl,) apparently are liable to lose the initial
> stop, leaving initial l. I say apparently because I have only
> doubtful inÂstances of the sequence stl > tl > l. It is inferable
> from doublets like Lat. stlis/sclis/lis, stlocus/locus; from
> stlat(t)a 'a broad ship', tlatum, p.p. of fero, = latum, latus
> 'broad', latus 'side'; and from *Stlatium, Tlatie, Latium. The loss
> of initial s before a consonant is common Indo-European; but every
> reason forbids that lis, locus should be Indo-European, while stlis,
> stlocus are post-IE loans. The alternative probability is that a
> dropping of s from sl was coeval with the intercalaÂtion of t, and
> was just another device to avoid pronunciation of sl. I leave the
> question open and for determination in each individual case.
>
> 7. By a different result of lack of coordination, perhaps as an
> effort to aid articulation, there is produced a hiatus between the t
> (k, p) and l. This is a breath sound which is a rudimentary vowel,
> becoming in time a full vowel. This intercalary vowel, not being
> historical or etymological but a mere phonetic incident in
> post-Indo-European speech, may take on any vowel timbre according to
> circumstances. Sometimes it comes in by a metathesis or
> transposition of an original vowel in the word. The anaptyctic vowel
> may be represented by a sign like É, but is not to be confused with
> IE schwa. Moreover, the intercalary vowel someÂtimes takes on the
> stress accent, which tends to disguise the form and remove it from
> its cognates in sl. -
> Ex.: Gr. = ÏÏÎµÎ³Î³Î¯Ï = ÏÏÎµÎ»Î³Î¯Ï 'a body-scraper'.
> - Boh. tlapa 'paw',
> Rum. talpe id., talpetá 'to stamp the feet',
> Lat. talpa 'mole' (from his large, flat front paws),
> Gr. ÏÎºÎ¬Î»Î¿Ï and ÏÏάλαξ id.,
> Ital. scalpitare 'to clatter with the hoofs (horses)';
> Gr. κολάÏÏειν 'to stamp with the hoof (horses)'.
> - Bret. (dial. Van) stlafein 'flanquer',
> Gr. κÏλαÏÎ¿Ï 'a box on the ear'.
> - Bret. stlak 'claquement', stlok = stolok 'bruit sourd'.
> - Bret. stlafad 'soufflet',
> stalaf 'battant de porte',
> stalf 'linteau'.
> - Pol. tlusty 'fat', Russ. tolstyy id.
> - Boh. slup/ stlup 'pillar, column',
> Illyr. Stlupi, Stulpini (supra).
> - Gr. Ïκλοι~Î¿Ï = ÏκολιÏÏ 'crooked'.
> - Fr. claque 'a group of hired applauders',
> Gr. κÏλαξ 'a flatterer, fawner'.
>
> 8. Finally, the l of stl, skl (scl), spl sometimes changes to r. It
> is not suggested that all cases of str skr (scr) spr have this
> origin; but there are enough doublets extant to establish the
> phonetic rule when applicable.-
> Ex.: Gr. ÏÏÎ»ÎµÎ³Î³Î¯Ï = ÏÏÏεγγίÏ, supra.
> - Bret. stlak = strak 'claqueÂment';
> stlapad, 'coup de main',
> strapad 'accès (de mauvais temps, de maladie),
> strap 'bruit'.
> - E slip, slippery,
> Bret. (dial. Leon) stlipou pl. 'tripes', (dial. Van) stripou, id.,
> Fr. tripes, id.
>
> 9. Reducing the foregoing conclusions to a formula we have:
> Coordinated IE sl > Uncoordinated stl > stÉl, tl, tÉl, skl > skÉl,
> kl, kÉl, spl > spÉl, pl, pÉl
> Add to this occasional variants in str etc., (which, however, cannot
> be said to form a similar complete paradigm) and we have the basis
> for analysing a large class of European loan-words whose true places
> in the history of language cannot otherwise be properly determined.
>
> 10. It is apparent that in collating such words from various
> languages, ancient and modern, we are not dealing with them on the
> principles on which words descended from a common Indo-European
> origin are collated. Indeed, if our main thesis be correct, namely,
> that the comÂbination stl is a phonetic phenomenon of
> post-Indo-European speech, it is manifest that such groups of words
> must represent a later, but still chiefly prehistoric, epoch of
> interloans among the already formed and divergent languages. It also
> follows that such words cannot be assigned to any Indo-European
> origin without first eliminating the intercalated stop (and the
> intercalated vowel, if any) and carrying them back to the
> Indo-European original through their related forms in the northern
> or sl group of languages. -
> Ex.:
> Gr. ÏÎºÎ¬Î»Î¿Ï must be analyzed as Ï(κα)λοÏ-, and not as Ïκαλ-οÏ-;
> Lat. talpa as s(t)lap-, not as talp-, and Gr. ÏÏάλαξ as Ï(Ïα)λακ- =
> Ï(κα)λαÏ-, not as ÏÏαλ-ακ - all under the common European loan-form
> slap or slop.
>
> 11. The modern science of comparative Indo-European linguistics has
> been intent on building up the primitive elements of the parent
> speech. This monumental labor has now about attained its object, and
> the question even arises whether the system has not become
> over-comprehensive. All words not obviously loans are, a priori,
> assigned, or sought to be assigned, to some primitive etymon of the
> parent speech. But there was a vast stretch of time - how many
> centuries or millennia we will never know - between that parent
> speech and our recorded languages. Throughout those long unrecorded
> ages of prehistory what interrelations existed between the peoples
> who spoke the prototypes of our recorded languages we do not know.
> But we must recogÂnize that whenever, even to the remotest times,
> there was contact beÂtween two or more speech-groups, there was
> inevitably an interchange, more or less extensive, of vocabulary.9
> Meillet has forcibly reminded us10 that the body of words classed as
> Indo-European really consists of two distinct categories:
> (1) words properly Indo-European; and
> (2) words which are loans between the separate dialects or languages
> descended from Indo-European.
> These two categories are confused because of the lack of some
> criterion which can distinguish the original from the loan words.
> The present theory furnishes, as to the type of words to which it
> applies, such a criterion. According to our main premise words
> bearing the hall-mark of the intercalated stop in sl must belong,
> not to the primiÂtive Indo-European era, but to some period of that
> long and ever silent interval following the breaking up of the
> parent language. If this should necessitate the reconsideration of
> some etymologies" heretofore deemed adequate, it need not, in any
> event, disturb the fundamental principles of the science. It offers
> a point of orientation from which the beginnings may be made of an
> exploration into an uncharted void in the history of language. That
> exploration will become more extensive and produce greater results
> in proportion as other criteria may be found identifying other types
> of the prehistoric loan-vocabulary.
>
>
>
> 1 Substantially as presented in a paper read before the annual
> meeting of the Linguistic Society OF America at New York, December
> 27th, 1935.
> 2 In words like Ital. slargare the sl is not strictly initial.
> 3 See Walde-Pokorny, 2.706-16; 603-51. I have not noticed anything
> relevant to this topic in the available data of Hittite and
> Tokharian.
> 4 As Sanskrit acquired the cacuminal dentals from the Dravidian
> aborigines. SeeMeillet, Introd.6 11.
> 5 Who these Mediterranean people were and what language they spoke
> is unÂknown, and no supposition is advanced. However, we are, I
> think, justified in calling the stl combination 'Mediterranean'.
> 6 Oscan slagim (Acc.) 'regionem, finis', slaagid (Abl.),
> beside
> Lat. stlocus, stloppus, stlat(t)a, stlis, stlembus;
> Oscan proper name Slabiis,
> beside Lat. Stlabius, Labius.
> Buck, Osc.-Umbr. Gram.,
> s.vv.-Celto-Ligurian inscr. No. 269 slaniai (Prae-Ital. Dial. 2.86),
> Dat. 'to Slania'?,
> beside
> Stlania (Venetia).
> So, generally in the coastal dialects:
> Stlaccia (Lucania, Calabria, Campania, Latium, Venetia);
> Stloga (Latium);
> Stlabia, Stlaboria (Campania);
> Stlatta (Volsci);
> Stlar*** (Daunia);
> Stla**** (Picenum);
> and the Illyrian town Stlupi (Ptolemy), with ethnicon Stulpini, on
> the coast of Liburnia. For the Italic names see
> Conway, Italic Dialects (1897), and
> Conway, Whatmough, and Johnson, Prae-Italic Dialects (1933),
> passim.
> -Umbrian Tlatie 'Latii' (Buck, op. cit.) does not, I think,
> represent a local stl, and thus separate Umbrian from Oscan; but is
> from an older name *Stlatium of the Latins themselves, i.e. *Slatium
> 'the flat courtry'. Cf. CamÂpania; stlat(t)a.
> 7 And, it seems to me, in contact with early Latin. The most archaic
> stl forms are in Breton.
> 8 Prov., Sp., Pg. scl beside escl; OFr. escl (Fr. écl); Ital. and
> Rum. schi. The statement of Brugmann (Grundr.2 1.585) that Lat. stl,
> 'nach gewissen lauten', became sl > l, does not apply to initial
> stl. - Although we are not concerned with the general history of
> -sl- in interior position, it may be observed that the tendency of
> the dialects of the south Italian coasts to intercalate t into sl
> was so strong, that when Lat. insula became *isla it was pronounced
> *istla, and became the name of the island Iscla, now Ischia, off the
> Bay of Naples. Grandgent, Vulg. Lat. ?284. In Calabria, Sicily, and
> Sardinia the common noun appears as iska, and in ProÂvence as iscla.
> Meyer-Liubke, REW2 4475.
> 9 Although this loan-epoch seems to have been primarily European the
> eastern languages may also be represented. We may venture to call it
> the Prehistoric European Loan-period, waiving, for the moment, any
> participation of the eastern group that may be shown.
> 10 'Toutefois, il importe de ne jamais l'oublier, le terme de mots
> indo-européens recouvre deux choses hétérogenes et qui ne restent
> confondues que par suite de l'absence d'un critère donnant le moyen
> de les distinguer; et la part des emprunts préhistoriques d'un
> dialecte indo-européen à un autre ou de plusieurs dialectes
> indo-européens à des langues d'autres familles est certainement
> immense'. MeilÂlet, Introd.6 339, cf. 343.
> 11 I do not discuss details of etymologies since those heretofore
> advanced are usually treated on an Indo-European basis, and must
> necessarily clash with those on the interloan theory. I have sought
> to use for the exposé of the principles announced illustrative forms
> whose semantic relations are simple and obvious. There are, however,
> other groups which similarly demonstrate the general prinÂciples, and
> which I hope to discuss hereafter.'
>
> The slave and Slav word (with its sl-/skl-/stl-)
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/66821
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/67224
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/67253
> would also belong here.