From: Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
Message: 68716
Date: 2012-03-02
>—————————————————————————————————————
>
>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
> <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:
>>
>> 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),
>
> 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.
>> 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.
>
> That is exactly what they don't have.
>—————————————————————————————————————
>> 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
>
> Your flawed premise renders your conclusion invalid.
>—————————————————————————————————————
>> 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.
>
> Yes I can, if I can find such a prevailing phoneme.
>—————————————————————————————————————
> 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.
>—————————————————————————————————————
>
>> 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.
>
> Which are? I'm afraid I haven't heard them.
>
>> 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.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ausones
> So, no.
>
>> What have gained in splitting Latin into two languages?
>
> Apart from annoying you? A better understanding of Roman origins
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrician_(ancient_Rome)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plebeians
> Where does that /a/ < */o/ rule enter the picture?—————————————————————————————————————
>> I don't agree when You connect them with Germanic, because in—————————————————————————————————————
>> that case You are denying a hereditary derivation from *beig'-
>
> I can make sense of what you wrote if I emend it to
> 'I don't agree when You don't connect them with Germanic...'
> since disconneting them from Germanic and its Grimm-shift is exactly what I—————————————————————————————————————
> do when I attribute them to NWB.
> However, Kuhn seems to assume that the NWB loans in Germanic are post-Grimm;
> if they were pre-Grimm they would have been loaned in the form you cite for
> 'Indic'. Another indication of this may be the fact that the NWB words in p-
> identified by Kuhn often have variants in b-; a similar phenomenon appears
> in Jutland
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/30336
>
>> (cp. Indic *bid.d.a-, *bed.d.a- 'defective', Turner 9238,
>
> Reference? Turner?
>
>> exactly from *big'-do- and *boig'-do-, the protoforms of Germanic
>> *pik- and *paik-)
>
>
>> 2012/3/1, Torsten <tgpedersen@...>:
>
>> PIE *bh- > Venetic f- word-initially, Old European b-
> cf Belgae/Villigst
>> > 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 of
>> > Setidava without losing the distinction between Dacians and
>> > Thracians.
>
>> Sorry, I haven't understood. What should I do and why?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dacian_language#Thracian
> 'Georgiev was the first scholar to discover a linguistically significant
> toponymic fact: Daco-Moesian placenames generally end in -DAVA (variants:
> -daba, -deva: "town" or "stronghold"). But placenames in Thrace proper (i.e.
> South of the Haemus range - Balkan mountains) usually end in -PARA (variant:
> -pera: "village" or "settlement":[161] cf Hindi suffix -pur = "town" e.g.
> Udaipur),[original research?] or, in fewer cases, in -BRIA ("town") or -DIZA
> (or -dizos: "stronghold")[162][163] But Papazoglu (1978) and Tacheva (1997)
> reject the argument that such different placename-endings imply different
> languages[164][165] (although, in historical linguistics, changes in
> placename suffixes is generally regarded as strong evidence of changes in
> prevalent language).[166]'
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dacian_language#2nd_century_AD
>
> If you give up the claim that -dava names are indicative of Dacian presence,
> you lose of of the main criteria for distinguishing linguistically between
> Dacian and Thracian settlements.
>> >—————————————————————————————————————
>> But every part of Germanic and Latin vocabulary CAN be matched
>> with a standard derivation from their parent language
>
> No. That's why those substrates were proposed.
>—————————————————————————————————————
>> (the text reads "from its supposed": what "supposed"? A parent
>> language?).
>
> Everything in historical linguistics is 'supposed'.
>—————————————————————————————————————
>
>> 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).
>
> Nonsense. Substrates is not a recent thing.
> You can only maintain that position if you posit that the process of—————————————————————————————————————
> language genesis has changed fundamentally in the meanwhile.
>