From: Torsten
Message: 68726
Date: 2012-03-03
>Isn't being in the same tribe a kind of special relationship?
> 2012/3/2, Torsten <tgpedersen@...>:
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
> > <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@> wrote:
> >>
> >> 2012/3/1, Torsten <tgpedersen@>:
> >> >>
> >> >> IMHO all ancient Veneti and Venetes were IE tribes with
> >> >> the same name and no more. Of course they had some lexicon in
> >> >> common,but no special relationships.
> >> >
> >> > Why the common name then?
> Because they were PIE tribes whose name was given in similar
> circumstances or because they were the same PIE tribe
> 2012/3/2, Torsten <tgpedersen@...>:If they didn't change their language, they would have spoken either the same language or a number of related languages (let's call them the Venetic languages), right?
> >
> >> Because they preserved their name since PIE epoch, the age of
> >> migrations (Upper Palaeolithic; later on Neolithic as well and
> >> partially also Chalcolithic)
> >
> > So then they were the same people? Why did they change their
> > language then?
> >
> They didn't change their language. It became Venetic in one
> region, somthing else (maybe different from Venetic - */bh/ > /b/ -
> maybe not) in other regions, but always from PIE. Same PIE,
> different daughter languages (maybe not different; I'm simply not
> sure as You are)
> 2012/3/2, Torsten <tgpedersen@...>:*de:g- ,packen'?
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_root#Restrictions_on_the_plosives
> > 'A root cannot contain two plain voiced plosives (**ged-),...'
> > We don't find the roots **ged- and **deg-.
> Please look in Pokorny
> 2012/3/2, Torsten <tgpedersen@...>:Erh, okay.
>
> >
> >> PIE */b/ has realtively many attestations (more than */gwh/)
> >> not only in Germanic, but also in Armenian, Latin and Old Indic.
> >> Mots attestations are Germanic because Germanic words are more
> >> than those of any other class, so every PIE phoneme is mostly
> >> represented by Germanic!
> >
> > That's right. Most of those PIE *b-'s are concluded from Germanic
> > *p- only. The whole idea of positing a reconstructed root is to
> > base it on more than one occurrence in the daughter languages. All
> > those solo occurrences of p- in Germanic raises the suspicion that
> > those words don't belong there.
> In many cases a root must have survived in just one language.
> Otherwise they would have said: Oh no! Our nieghbours have lost
> these word. We're left alone! We must give up our word!
> 2012/3/2, Torsten <tgpedersen@...>:I agree.
>
> >> It's too easy, I can't accept such a reasoning unless it's
> >> presented for what it is: a simple hypothesis (a reductionist
> >> one)
> >
> > They are all hypotheses. What is your point?
> To accept all hypotheses, not excluding the a priori more
> probable ones
> >That too.
> >> 2012/3/1, Torsten <tgpedersen@>:
> >> >> If yes, however, they wouldn't be a residue of an
> >> >> earlier wider substrate, because the are in between exhibit
> >> >> place-names which have experimented all sound laws from PIE to
> >> >> Celtic (and no other sound laws), so there's direct continuity
> >> >> in Central (and Western) Europe form PIE to Celtic (and all
> >> >> possible words on non-IE origins have *better* IE-Celtic
> >> >> etymologies).
> >> >
> >> > That is at odds with what I know. Please cite an example of a
> >> > place name with competing NWB and Celtic etymologies in
> >> > NWEurope.
> >
> >> You give orders, but I don't understand their sense. I've
> >> written:
> >> "all possible words on non-IE origins have *better* IE-Celtic
> >> etymologies". NWB is of IE origin. So what has NWB to do here?
> >
> > Actually Kuhn posited two NWB languages: an original non-IE one,
> > which he called the ar-/ur-language, and a later, shortlived IE
> > language.
> Not NWB; he called the non-IE one "ein zweites Alteuropa"
> 2012/3/2, Torsten <tgpedersen@...>:http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/59384?var=0&l=1
>
> >
> >
> >> 2012/3/1, Torsten <tgpedersen@>:
> >>
> >> > Many (coastal) Slovenian dialects have
> >> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betacism ,
> >> > or rather the reverse, *w- -> *b-
> >> > according to
> >> > Josef Savli, Matej Bor
> >> > "Unsere Vorfahren die Venter"
> >> > which nice linguists don't read, but which provides much data.
> >> > cf.
> >> > so I suspected identifying toponym (reverse) betacism wouldhttp://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/60815?var=0&l=1
> >> > establish the presence of Veneti.
> >> >http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/59928?var=0&l=1
> >> > FWIW
> >> >I don't understand what you mean. I quote Latin names, not Greek ones.
> >> >
> >
> >
> >> You grouped together attestations with
> >> Middle Greek orthography (<b> for /v/),
> > Which ones?
> The Balkan ones
> 2012/3/2, Torsten <tgpedersen@...>:Yes, I can understand that. That voice bilabial fricative is developed from what?
>
> >
> >> Middle High German phonology (with <w> and <b> for a voiced
> >> bilabial fricative)
> > Which ones?
> The German and Hungarian ones
> 2012/3/2, Torsten <tgpedersen@...>:Venetian has reverse betacism. Cool, so do neighboring Slovenian dialects.
> >
> >> and Romance outputs according to the sound law /v/ > /b/ when
> >> followed by vowel + continuous + stop (e.g. uesper > bespro,
> >> uulpes > bolpe)
> > Which ones?
> The Venetian ones
> 2012/3/2, Torsten <tgpedersen@...>:True, I listed all words in the Orbis Latinus list with b-/v- alternation; some are bound to be irrelevant.
>
> >
> >> or simply /b/ > /v/ word-initially (Southern Italo-Romance).
> > Wich ones?
> The Southern Italian ones
> 2012/3/2, Torsten <tgpedersen@...>:The letter that is interpreted as /b/ in Venetic is a descendant of the Greek Ï, phi. The pronounciation /b/ is not obvious.
>
> >
> >> Please note that we have NO trace of such treatments in REAL
> >> Venetic inscriptions!
> >
> > Venetic uses it own alphabet, so we don't know how they pronounced
> > the letter descended from /v/ in other alphabets. The fact that
> > they use the letter descended from /z/ for PIE d (written zonasto,
> > zoto for presumed donasto, doto "gave") raises suspicion that PIE
> > d- > Venetic d-/ð-, thus we could have PIE w > Venetic b/β as in
> > Spanish, Neapolitan and Maceratese
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betacism
> /v/ and /b/ are different phonemes in Venetic