Re: Substrates in Latin and Germanic [was: The reason for Caesar's o

2012/3/1, Torsten <tgpedersen@...>:

> You misunderstand. I haven't claimed to have disproven the standard theory
> of a direct decence of the 'mots populaires' from PIE, only that I *prefer*
> to explain them as loanwords. This I do because of the greater explaining
> power of that theory since it explains the systematically (not random)
> skewed distribution of the semantics of those words.

——————————————————————————————————————
Both hereditary and substrate etymology can make use of 11,449,000
billions of Indo-European words (resulting from 2140 roots, 100
suffixes, five ablaut grades, and word-composition rules). If a
language derives from an earlier phase, it has always a diachronic
phonology: this is what hereditary etymology can utilize without
positing anything else.
Substrate etymology has to posit an additional diachronic
phonology. Since both hereditary and substrate etymology are ALWAYS
possible (provided they are lexically and morphologically correct and
phonologically coherent), this additional phonology is based on
etymologies that are NEVER compelling (note: complelling; maybe they
are indeed true, but not compelling) because they have always another
equally possible hereditary etymology beside them.
For this reason only, substrate etymology, although more than
possible, is always flanked by hereditary etymology. They are equally
powerful, the latter is more economic
——————————————————————————————————————
2012/3/1, Torsten <tgpedersen@...>:

>> Note that I'm not excluding that they are loans, I'm just
>> claiming that the hereditary hypothesis is at least at the same
>> level of probability
>
> Except for explaining the skewed distribution of their semantics.
>

——————————————————————————————————————
As for semantics, You can pick any semantic group and find out
which phoneme is prevailing and then attribute the origin of all other
occurrences of that phoneme to a substrate.
'Popular' is too vague a concept; moreover, with the addition of
'religious'! What is left then? You have simply taken Latin lexicon
and attributed to Coastal Ausonian.
——————————————————————————————————————
2012/3/1, Torsten <tgpedersen@...>:

>> and morevoer doesn't have to postulate a substrate presence in Rome
>> (not otherwise documented except for these controversial words).
>
> Not true. I wish linguists would be more aware of ancient sources and of
> archaeology.

——————————————————————————————————————
I can't understand Your citations. What have they to do with the
documentation of substrates in Latin *except these very words*?
——————————————————————————————————————
2012/3/1, Torsten <tgpedersen@...>:>
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/29491?var=0&l=1

> BTW I think Venetic had sg. -sk-/ pl. -st- alternation (cf eg. Polish)
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/59166?var=0&l=1
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/66676?var=0&l=1
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/66683?var=0&l=1
> The source for the Roman Plebeian 'a-language' would then be the
> Opici/Ausones
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opici
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ausones
> (from *op-/*ow- "mouth of a river", cf
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostia_Antica
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osismi
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesti
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swinoujscie
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aarhus#Name
> cf
> http://www.angelfire.com/rant/tgpedersen/Op.html
> Semitic A-p- "mouth of a river"
> ) ->
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabines
> ->
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plebeians

——————————————————————————————————————
This is an unduly expanded version of Meillet's and Peruzzi's
ideas. Your Ausonians are Latin, body and soul. What have gained in
splitting Latin into two languages?
——————————————————————————————————————
2012/3/1, Torsten <tgpedersen@...>:

>> Alas the very existence of such component people is product of a
>> linguistic hypothesis and therefore cannot be the base for further
>> arguments: it's simply one and the same argument - a good
>> hypothesis, but not better than the hypothesis of the absence of the
>> /a/-substrate of Latin
>
> No, see above; we have to assume the existence of that component on
> historico-sociological grounds anyway, so Occam doesn't apply here.
>

——————————————————————————————————————
It's obvious that a popular component did exist in Rome. The
problem is in linking it with /a/ < */o/
——————————————————————————————————————
2012/3/1, Torsten <tgpedersen@...>:

> I know that that is what orthodoxy teaches us, so imagine my surprise when I
> checked for Celtic cognates of NWB words in p-, eg.
> http://www.angelfire.com/rant/tgpedersen/KuhnText/01paik-betr_gen.html
> http://www.angelfire.com/rant/tgpedersen/KuhnText/02pal-steif.html
> http://www.angelfire.com/rant/tgpedersen/KuhnText/03palm-fassen.html
> http://www.angelfire.com/rant/tgpedersen/KuhnText/04palt-lappen.html
> http://www.angelfire.com/rant/tgpedersen/KuhnText/05par-sichtbar.html
> and check further for youreself here:
> http://www.angelfire.com/rant/tgpedersen/KuhnText/list.html
>

——————————————————————————————————————
Are You joking? Why should these Celtic words be other than Latin peccatum?
Anyway, I'm deeply anti-Latinist in Celtic etymology (as You can
easily imagine), so if You find that presumed Latinisms in Celtic are
of IE origin, well done! Latin loan or NWB loan? Good alternative.
I don't agree when You connect them with Germanic, because in that
case You are denying a hereditary derivation from *beig'- (cp. Indic
*bid.d.a-, *bed.d.a- 'defective', Turner 9238, exactly from *big'-do-
and *boig'-do-, the protoforms of Germanic *pik- and *paik-)
——————————————————————————————————————
2012/3/1, Torsten <tgpedersen@...>:

> Actually I think Old European is Venetic, in order to please Occam.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veneti_(Gaul)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendsyssel#Etymology
> Note that they are a sea people, which explains the wide distribution of
> Venetic/Old European hydronyms, cf the distribution of Dutch hydronyms in
> North Europe (North Sea, etc).

——————————————————————————————————————
PIE *bh- > Venetic f- word-initially, Old European b-
PIE */o/ > Venetic /o/, Old European (allegedly) /a/ (I think
rather /a/ where local language has /a/ < /o/, otherwise /o/).
IMHO, as in Krahe's opinion, Old European is not a separate
language, but a protohistorical phase of historical IE languages, so
Ockham is still more pleased
——————————————————————————————————————
2012/3/1, Torsten <tgpedersen@...>:

>> In this particular case I have doubts that Daco-Misian had a
>> Lautverschiebung, while I find quite convincing that Thracian had
>> one (Georgiev, Duridanov).
>
> I haven't read them, you'd have to quote their arguments to convince me. I
> don't remember seeing any signs of LV in the glosses in Detschew's "Die
> thrakischen Sprachresten'.

——————————————————————————————————————
Since */bh/ */dh/ */gh/ > /b/ /d/ /g/ aren't diagnostic, I list
only */b/ */d/ */g/ > /p/ /t/ /k/:
Skalpe:nos (place name): lit. Skalbupis, Utus (river name) < *udo-s
(*wed- 'water'), Kikones < *gwig-on-es : quick

and for */p/ > /ph/
Ostaphos (place name) : *h2ap- 'water', rhomphaia (if Thracian) : Lat. rumpo
——————————————————————————————————————
2012/3/1, Torsten <tgpedersen@...>:

>> OK, very good. This is a good argument. Until we don't know
>> something more about alternative etymologies and explanations of the
>> name (I could propose some of them, but now it's really irrelevant,
>> so I omit to do it), a simple ending -daua is a weak piece of
>> evidence, but still it IS a piece of evidence.
>
> Sorry, you can't do that. The
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dava_(Dacian)
> names have been used to separate Dacians from Thracians
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dava_(Dacian)
> so you can't give up the ethnic connotation in the case of Setidava without
> losing the distinction between Dacians and Thracians.

——————————————————————————————————————
Sorry, I haven't understood. What should I do and why?
——————————————————————————————————————
2012/3/1, Torsten <tgpedersen@...>:

>> So, for the sake of the argument, let's state that (I'm quoting)
>> "a Dacian outpost in North Central Europe" was in linguistic contact
>> with Proto-Germans and that words could flow from there up to
>> Scandinavia (not just into Scirian). This is a further, but
>> possible, hypothesis.
> Yes
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/67598?var=0&l=1
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/67603?var=0&l=1
> cf
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dauciones
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/66976?var=0&l=1
> who I think are better explained as *daŋ-k-io-.
>
> On arriving in Denmark, cf.
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/67106?var=0&l=1
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/66612?var=0&l=1
>

——————————————————————————————————————
From what do You get they were Dacians? They could very well be
Germanic people as well!
——————————————————————————————————————
2012/3/1, Torsten <tgpedersen@...>:

>> All of Kuhn's etymologies (which I like, by the way) are less
>> than a single inscription. In order to be sure that a language has
>> been spoken in a region, one needs inscriptions.
>
> I disagree. If a sufficiently large part of the vocabulary of a language
> can't be matched with a standard derivation from its supposed, you have to
> suppose a different ancestor. That goes for mixed language as well as for
> mixed creatures.
>

——————————————————————————————————————
But every part of Germanic and Latin vocabulary CAN be matched
with a standard derivation from their parent language (the text reads
"from its supposed": what "supposed"? A parent language?).
There's ample room for substrates only in MEDIAEVAL and MODERN
languages, especially Romance languages, Souther Slavonic, and English
(and of course Hungarian, Turkish, Maltese and so on and so forth).
Most uncertain etymologies of Romance words are in fact easily
traceable to PIE through local Old Celtic; similarly for Roumanian
through Dacian and so on. Ancient IE languages are, on the contrary,
always provided with PIE etymologies. Always. And regular ones, too.
You can try to add alternative substrate etymologies, but You can
never find anything better. Only at the same level