From: Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
Message: 68634
Date: 2012-02-29
> Right guess, I wanted You to demonstrate why You prefer that
> explanation
> On one side You are so tough that You want all semantic groups to
> show *exactly* the same phonemic distribution, although one can always
> group words with one phoneme and then affirm that such phoneme
> characterizes their prevailing meaning ('populaire' is very vague for
> the complex of Latin words with /a/ of non-laryngeal origin: cacumen
> calamitas calare calidus callis calx cancer candere cardo carina
> carinare caro carpere carpinus carrere caterua scabere scalpere
> scamnum scandere scatere; auillus caudex cauere cauilla cauos fauere
> fauila fauis(s)ae Fauonius Faui fauos fraus laus lauere pauere rauos;
> malleus malus manere manus marcere mare margo maritus mateola; canis
> fax quaerere qualum/s quatere squalus suasum uacca uagus ualgus ualuae
> uas uastus; flagrare frangere gradior labra lac magnus nassa trabs;
> fraces lapis latus patere sacena aries gramen gramiae trahere faba;
> castrare farcire farnus fastigium ianitrices mala nancire pando panus
> passer quattuor sarcire sarire spargere uannus);
> You are quite severe when You define 'contrived' the explanations
> through *h2 (but that's simply Your "feeling", as You write);
> on the other side You are so confident as to postulate whole
> languages (never attested as such) in the ethnogesis of Romans and
> Germani (which languages?)
>
> You can be skeptical about laryngeal etymologies, but then You must
> be even more skeptical about substrates;
> otherwise You can postulate substrates, but a fortiori You have to
> accept laryngeal and other hereditary explanations even if these make
> redundant substrate hypotheses
>
> 2012/2/29, Torsten <tgpedersen@...>:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
>> <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:
>>>
>>> 2012/2/28, Torsten <tgpedersen@...>:
>>>
>>> >> > 'calles' has root 'a', thus it is a 'mot populaire' and as such
>>> >> > not directly descended from PIE by the same route as 'regular'
>>> >> > Latin. Ie. it is a loan.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> No.
>>> >> 1) 'Mot populaire' doesn't mean 'loan'.
>>> >
>>> > I think it does.
>>
>>> Please demonstrate it
>>>
>>
>> That I think so?
>> I assume you want me to tell why I prefer that explanation.
>> It's like this:
>>
>> 1. The 'mots populaires' belong to a particlar semantic sphere, namely
>> that
>> pertaining to lower classes of Roman society. You would not see that
>> skewed
>> distribution if they had been descended from PIE the same way as other
>> Latin
>> words.
>>
>> 2. Kuhn pointed out that many Latin words with root -a- have
>> correspondences
>> with root -a- in Germanic.
>> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/30032?var=0&l=1
>> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/36941?var=0&l=1
>> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/36946?var=0&l=1
>> I am sure those -a-'s can 'explained' as reflexes of -h2-, but I feel
>> that
>> is contrived. Given the etnic and linguistic environment at the time of
>> the
>> ethnogensis of Romans and Germani I prefer to ascribe them to a language
>> or
>> several related languages present both places at the requisite time.
>>
>>> >
>>> >> 2) There are plenty of sources for Latin /a/
>>> >> e.g. from */e/ after PIE pure velar */k/
>>> >
>>> > I also think pure velars indicate loans.
>>> >
>>
>>> Same as above
>>
>> Pure velars tend to occur with -a-. Therefore I suspect they have the
>> same
>> origin.
>>
>>
>> Torsten
>>
>>
>>
>