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

From: Torsten
Message: 68727
Date: 2012-03-03

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:
>
> (...) Indic *bid.d.a-, *bed.d.a- 'defective', Turner 9238, exactly
> from *big'-do- and *boig'-do-, the protoforms of Germanic *pik- and
> *paik-
> (Ralph Lilley TURNER, A Comparative Dictionary of the Indo-Aryan
> Languages, London â€" New York â€" Toronto, Oxford University Press,
> 1966)

Thanks, I just ordered it from the library.

> 2012/3/2, Torsten <tgpedersen@...>:
> > 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

> I can't understand Your sentence "if they were pre-Grimm they would
> have been loaned in the form you cite for 'Indic'":
> 1) if You mean "if *pik-/*paik- were pre-Grimm they would have
> been loaned [from an IE language into Germanic] in the form *big'-
> and *boig'- [which, by the way, aren't exactly identical to the
> Indic forms]" and they they would have become Germanic *pik-/*paik-,
> this is precisely what I meant as well
That's what I mean.
> (but in this case the very hypothesis of a loan in completely
> unnecessary);
Pokorny has neither *big'- nor *boig'-. I wonder how late those Indiic words are.

> 2) if You mean "if *pik-/*paik- were pre-Grimm they would have
> been loaned [from NWB into Germanic] as such [*pik-/*paik-] and then
> they would have become *b- [again, not exactly the Indic forms,
> which have -e- and retroflex -d.-]", this would be totally absurd
> (there's no room in Grimm's or Verner's laws for word-initial */p/
> to become /b/).
That's not what I meant.

> Variants in (word-initial) /b/ confirm that Kuhn's /p/ is from
> PIE */b/, for the same reason

Yes, and it also confirms the existence of a non-Grimm-shifted language on the present Germanic territory, not necessarily a close relative of Germanic, since both p- and b- variant may have been borrowed.


What do you think then of the Finno-Permic matches in
http://www.angelfire.com/rant/tgpedersen/KuhnText/01paik-betr_gen.html
UEW (Uralisches Etymologogisches Wörterbuch):
'pečз 'unrein; häßlich, garstig' F[inno-]P[ermic]
Mord. E pežet', M pičä, pižä 'Sünde' |
wotj. S (Wichm., mitg. Uot.: MSFOu.65.: 164) G pož 'trüb, unrein (v. Flüssigkeiten)' |
syrj. S SO pež 'unrein, unflätig, häßlich, garstig, schlecht (S), (Wild) Schmutz, Unreinigkeit; поганый, нечистый; погань, скверна (SO)'.

Im Mord. fand ein Bedeutungswandel 'unrein, garstig; Schmutz, Unreinheit, Garstigkeit' -> 'Sünde' statt; ebenso im syrj. SO-Dialekt: 'поганый' ~ 'скверна'.

Zum Wechsel e ~ i in den mord. Dialekten vgl.
Paasonen: MSFOu. 22:77â€"8.

ÁKE 518;
Toivonen: FUF 19:78;
ESK.

Peccatum?

I'd add Germ. Pech, Sw. beck, Da. beg "pitch" (note p/b alternation).


Torsten