From: Torsten
Message: 68641
Date: 2012-02-29
> 2012/2/29, Torsten <tgpedersen@...>:http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/30032?var=0&l=1
> > --- 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.
> > I am sure those -a-'s can 'explained' as reflexes of -h2-, but IPlease add your comments *after* the paragraph you comment on, so that Brian or I won't have to do it for you.
> > 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.
> >
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:
>
> Right guess, I wanted You to demonstrate why You prefer that
> explanation
I don't understand your use of 'demonstrate' in that context.
> 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);
Yes. Thus I don't 'define' it as contrived.
> 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?)
Venetic. Possibly Dacian/Thracian.
> You can be skeptical about laryngeal etymologies, but then You
> must be even more skeptical about substrates;
No.
> otherwise You can postulate substrates, but a fortiori You have
> to accept laryngeal and other hereditary explanations
No.
> even if these make redundant substrate hypotheses
They don't.
Torsten