From: Torsten
Message: 68712
Date: 2012-03-02
>Fail. You assume here that a given word always can be given derivations in both the basic and the donor language. However, donor languages are only posited if there is a set of words in the given language which can not be explained (reasonably, in casu without zero-grade h2's) by a derivation in the basic language.
> 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 onThat is exactly what they don't have.
> 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 thanYour flawed premise renders your conclusion invalid.
> possible, is always flanked by hereditary etymology. They are
> equally powerful, the latter is more economic
> 2012/3/1, Torsten <tgpedersen@...>:Yes I can, if I can find such a prevailing phoneme.
> >> 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 ofThere are things in this world which are neither popular nor religious.
> 'religious'! What is left then?
> You have simply taken Latin lexicon and attributed to CoastalNo, I have taken the 'mots populaires' with roots in -a- (and -ae- and -au-) and attributed them to Opscan/Ausonian. Since that language surely had other vowels than -a-, many other, but not all Latin words may be Plebeian loans from that language.
> Ausonian.
> 2012/3/1, Torsten <tgpedersen@...>:I'm not sure what your question is about. As far as I can see, documenting a substrate is done on a word-by-word basis.
> >> 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/59166?var=0&l=1
> 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)
> > The source for the Roman Plebeian 'a-language' would then be theWhich are? I'm afraid I haven't heard them.
> > 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.I'm sure the Romans eventually convinced them of that. It took some time for them to catch on to the idea.
> What have gained in splitting Latin into two languages?Apart from annoying you? A better understanding of Roman origins
> 2012/3/1, Torsten <tgpedersen@...>:Where does that /a/ < */o/ rule enter the picture?
>
> >> 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@...>:http://www.angelfire.com/rant/tgpedersen/KuhnText/01paik-betr_gen.html
>
> > 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.
> > and check further for yourself here:http://www.angelfire.com/rant/tgpedersen/KuhnText/list.html
> >That's exactly the word the attribution of which to either Latin or NWB caused scores of postings here.
> Are You joking? Why should these Celtic words be other than
> Latin peccatum?
> Anyway, I'm deeply anti-Latinist in Celtic etymology (as You canI can make sense of what you wrote if I emend it to
> 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,Reference? Turner?
> exactly from *big'-do- and *boig'-do-, the protoforms of Germaniccf Belgae/Villigst
> *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 thinkSo no problem here.
> rather /a/ where local language has /a/ < /o/, otherwise /o/).
> IMHO, as in Krahe's opinion, Old European is not a separateYou are entitled to your opinion. It entails the idea of a Europe once speaking a homogenous IE dialect.
> language, but a protohistorical phase of historical IE languages, so
> Ockham is still more pleased
> 2012/3/1, Torsten <tgpedersen@...>:cf. the wildly varying *xalp-(?) "slave" word
> >> 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'),A river called 'water'? Hmmm.
> Kikones < *gwig-on-es : quickThe quick ones? Why?
> and for */p/ > /ph/That's not much.
> 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
> > so you can't give up the ethnic connotation in the case ofhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dacian_language#Thracian
> > 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@...>:http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/67598?var=0&l=1
> >> 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
> > cfhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dauciones
> > who I think are better explained as *daN-k-io-.http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/67106?var=0&l=1
> >
> > On arriving in Denmark, cf.
> >From the name.
> From what do You get they were Dacians?
> They could very well be Germanic people as well!By that time they probably spoke some Germanic dialect. Note however one common characteristic of North Germanic
> 2012/3/1, Torsten <tgpedersen@...>:No. That's why those substrates were proposed.
> >> 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 parentEverything in historical linguistics is 'supposed'.
> language?).
> There's ample room for substrates only in MEDIAEVAL and MODERNNonsense. Substrates is not a recent thing.
> 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 easilyYou can only maintain that position if you posit that the process of language genesis has changed fundamentally in the meanwhile.
> 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