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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Torsten" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

>
> 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. '
>

I'm afraid Beekes' "refutation" isn't actually a refutation. Also Furnée's "Pelasgian" has little to do with Georgiev's. The Bulgarian author, in his book "Introduction to the history of IE languages" (3rd edition, 1981), characterizes Thracian as an IE-satem language with a stop system similar to the one of Germanic and Armenian. He then defines "Pelasgian" as a close relative of Thracian, which he group together into a Thraco-Pelasgian group. And as its stop series I is voiceless aspirated, then *p- would be rendered as *pH in loanwords to Greek.

> 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.
>

Precisely because the word is attested in other IE languages.

> 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?
>

You said it was no explanation but I think it is, because denasalization is a rather common phonetic process. And it consistently happens at word-initial in some paleo-IE dialect (I use traditional reconstructions for the sake of clarity, not because I endorse "voiced aspirated"):

Altaic *mál^e 'wildcat' ~ IE *bhel- 'wildcat'
Altaic *maNga (~ -o) 'big, strong' ~ IE *bhengh-u- 'thick, abundant'
Altaic *n^ikrV 'a k. of thorny tree' ~ IE *dhergh-(no)- 'sloe tree, blackthorn'
Kartvelian *marts'q'w- 'wild strawberry' ~ IE *bhreh2g^- 'strawberry' (Latin fra:gum)

> 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?
>

Because the meaning shift 'night' > 'darkness' is straightforward. I also forgot to mention zéphyros 'west wind'. And sun sets around the west, you know.