From: Torsten
Message: 69365
Date: 2012-04-18
>R.S.P. BEEKES
> --- 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?
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Tavi" <oalexandre@...> wrote:
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Torsten" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > That's nice. Now, if you want the rest of us to accept that
> > pre-Greek was IE, you should present his arguments here.
> >
> Unlike these authors, I don't think "Pre-Greek" was a single
> language, but rather a label under which lie several substrates,
> both IE and non-IE.
Aha. And what was your point in mentioning Georgiev's Pelasgian then? You explicitly said 'pséphas must be a "Pelasgian" (a variety of Thracian) loanword'. Now it suddenly doesn't matter? Are you even trying?
> > > Precisely because the word is attested in other IE languages.>
> > Wrong. The fact that a word appears in an IE language does not
> > mean it's a native word; if it did, we wouldn't be having this
> > debate.
> >
> I'm afraid these are different things.
What are different things?
> The question is whether Greek borrowed these words from an IE
> language, even though the ulimate source might be non-IE.
If you think so, argue for it, which you haven't yet. As it stands it looks like you had a face-saving idea in the last second.
> > > 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)
> >
> > That's nonsense. The fact that a word appears in Altaic or
> > Kartvelian does not mean that they appear in some 'paleo-IE'
> > dialect,
>This way of argumenting is called "denial".
That way of arguing is called 'red herring'. I repeat:
The fact that a word appears in Altaic or Kartvelian does not mean that they appear in some 'paleo-IE' dialect.
> What I meant is denasalization isn't so uncommon as you might think.
Yes, that is exactly what you said, so the above is not an explanation of what you said. However what I said was that it was uncommon in IE. The fact that it's common elsewhere is irrelevant.
> > and if they did, that would not explain the single supposed
> > occurrence n- -> d- of Lithuanian. That is explained much better
> > by the assumption of an original cluster *dhn- vel sim.
> >And this one is called "mine is better".
And that is called switching the topic when you can't counter an argument. Grow up. I repeat:
The supposed singular n- -> d- of Lithuanian debesìs is explained much better by the assumption of an original cluster *dhn- vel sim in the "fog" word.
> I'm afraid you've got no case, Torsten.
I'm afraid you got no argument, Tavi. You're just arguing for the sake of arguing.
> > > 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.
> >
> > So are the shifts "darkness" > "night" and "darkness" > "fog".
> >
> But night is night and fog is fog.
And darkness is darkness. You are the new Heidegger.
Torsten