Re: Pre-Greek loanwords

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@...> wrote:

>
> Loanwords can go either way. Semitic has borrowed such IE terms as *burg- 'tower', *tawr- 'bull', and *qarn- 'horn'.
>

The first one is a Wanderwort of Vasco-Caucasian origin. And unlike *(s)teur-,*taur- doesn't have the IE Ablaut vowel, so it must be another Wanderwort.

> It may well have borrowed '6' and '7' from IE for use in counting cattle.
>

Semitic *sab?\(at)-um '7' can be linked to the word 'finger' in the same family, probably indicating the index finger in counting (a hand plus the thumb and index of the other). This numeral spread as a Wanderwort to other families such as IE, where it has no etymology. Also notice Germanic *sibun reflexes the Semitic masculine (unsufixed) form.

> Everything I wrote in 2008 needs to be reworked; perhaps I can reissue it by 2015.
>

Surely you could advance us a little.

> Georgiev's Th-P was satem, with a much shallower time-depth.
>
> > Not really, because Georgiev's chronology is actually deeper than the
> > std one. See for example the lower map on p. 357 of the 3rd edition of
> > his book. He also states (p. 361): "the Pelasgians probably developed
> > the pre-Sesklo (and Sesklo), Larissa I and Servia cultures, while the
> > Thracians developed the Karanovo I-III (6th-4th millenium BC)."
>
> How Goropian of that Bulgarian to place satem languages so far back. The best presentation of satemization I know of is Pisani's, and he puts it in the middle of the 2nd mill. BCE, spreading outward from Iranian, where it went to completion.
>

I'm afraid std chronologies are two low.

> Most languages which have been studied in depth have stratification,
> but "hybridization" is a poor term for this process.
>
> > The latter term is mainly used by proponents of the "Paleolithic
> > Continuity Theory". Anyway, mainstream IE-ists are oblivious to
> > stratification.
>
> Mainstream IEists give us most of the material we work with. I am not about to take potshots at them.
>

And this includes leaving their *outdated* PIE model untouched?

> Regardless, attempts to find a close relationship between Pre-Greek
> and Etruscan have failed.
>
> > But this doesn't mean somebody could eventually succeed, as there's
> > already a number of reasonable Etruscan-Pre-Greek correspondences.
>
> And somebody could eventually leave me a million dollars, as I already have a few in my pocket.
>

I think the banking business was invented by Phoenicians, although I don't see how this can be relevant to historical linguistics.

> Part of the problem is this inability to distinguish inherited from borrowed lexicon, and part is the strong, almost unconscious tendency to force an agreement with preconceived ideas.
>

Like e.g. IE numerals must have an IE etymology?

> > BTW, I think the practice of reconstructing PIE "laryngeals" from
> > every Greek prothetic vowel is rather absurd.
>
> It makes more sense than assuming arbitrary prothesis.
>
> > I don't think they're arbitrary at all. At least in the case of *e-, I
> > think it's a genuine prothetic vowel.
>
> Do you have clear examples for which prothesis works better than a laryngeal?
>

To begin with, PIE "laryngeals" aren't real laryngeals, but rather *segments* corresponding to a consonant (not necessarily a laryngeal) plus an optional vowel support. For example, I myself discovered PIE *h3- corresponds to Hittite *s^a- in these words:

Hittite *s^a:kuwa- 'eye' ~ PIE *h3ekW- 'eye'
Hittite *s^ankuwai- 'nail; a unit of linear measure' ~ PIE *h3n(o)gh- 'nail'

IMHO vowel support would be characteristic of *h2 and *h3 but not of *h1, so while *h2C- > Greek aC- and *h3C- > Greek *oC-, there's no point in positing *h1C-. This is why I think e- must be a genuine prothetic vowel.