Re: Greek psephas/knephas/dnophos/zophos: linked?

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Tavi" <oalexandre@...> wrote:

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Torsten" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> >
> > > We've got cognates in Indo-Iranian *k^sep- and Hittite ispant-
> > > 'night'. But as Greek -ph- corresponds to stop series I instead
> > > of series III, pséphas must be a "Pelasgian" (a variety of
> > > Thracian) loanword, as in that language series I was voiceless
> > > aspirated as in Germanic and Armenian.
> >
> > They *all* have -ph-, so no reason to let particularly kséphas be
> > Pelasgian, if that's what you mean. And if you mean the whole set,
> > Beekes explicitly refutes that.
> >
> References, please?

R.S.P. BEEKES
Pre-Greek
The Pre-Greek loans in Greek
p. 4
'As to 'Pelasgian' and related theories which assume an Indo-European substratum in Greece, these theories have failed, and I no longer mention them (in my etymological dictionary). The theory has been extensively discussed by Furnée (37-68). 'Pelasgian' has done much harm, and it is time to definitely reject it. '

> > But since they word most likely is a loan (because of the
> > alternations) historical IE rules are off the table.
> >
> In the inherited lexicon, Greek voiceless aspirated dcerive from PIE
> series III (tradtional "voiced aspirated"), but in these words,
> Greek /ph/ corresponds to series I. This indicates a loanword.

We never disagreed on that. The question is why you assume the source was an IE language.

> > > There's also the Altaic cognate *dz^ipHu 'evening, darkness'
> > > (Tungusic *dz^ip-ku 'to dusk', Japonic *dupu 'evening'), whose
> > > sibilant would explain Greek z- in zóphos.
> >
> > Not necessary, cf. Russian kníga, knyazь, Polish księga,
> ksiądz. Greek z- was pronounced dz-
> >
> I don't see your point.

A sibilant has arisen in the palatal context *kn´-. Therefore we don't have to account for that by a loan.

> > > Comparison with NEC *h\nitts\wV 'night, evening' (> IE *nekW-t-
> > > 'night') suggests the labial stop is the result of the reduction
> > > of the affricate+labial glide cluster. This way, Greek knéphas
> > > could be straightforwardly from the NEC protoform.
> >
> > Circular argumentation, inconclusive.
> >
> I disagree.

It's a proposal, you don't present it as such.

> > which also takes care of the odd Lithuanian form with d-
> >
> > > IMHO This would be explained as a denasalization *n- > *d-.
> >
> > That's not an explanation. It's not even a proposal since it's the
> > usual way of explaining this unique occurrence (thus weak).
> >
> I disagree.

With what? It's the usual way of explaining this unique occurrence, and since it's unique, it's ad hoc. With hat exactly do you disagree?

> > Semantically "darkness" and "cloud" match.
> >
> > > > That's right, but 'night, evening' has got preference.
> >
> > What's that supposed to mean? The original set of words under
> > discussion (psephas, knephas, dnophos, zophos, gnophos) all mean
> > "darkness".
> >
> But you forget the Indo-Iranian, Hittite and Altaic cognates whose
> meaning is 'night'.

And that, in your opinion, has preference why?


Torsten