From: Torsten
Message: 69417
Date: 2012-04-23
>No U.
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Torsten" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> > > > Yes, if you knew it was borrowed from an IE language. But you
> > > > don't. The proper way to state your proposal is to say it's a
> > > > proposal which might be true if Georgiev's Pelasgian existed
> > > > and if had ph for PIE p.
> >
> > > Your skepticism is shared by many historical linguists, who are
> > > reluctant to admit the existence of *substrate* languages.
> >
> > What is this BS about my 'skepticism' wrt. substrate languages? I
> > have been referring to hypothetical substrate languages all the
> > time. Do you even read what I write?
> >
> What's your problem then?
> > Goddammit! I repeat: How is Georgiev's Pelasgian relevant toOkay, so you maintain pséphas etc are from Georgiev's Thracian-related Pelasgian.
> pséphas etc? You know, Georgiev's Thracian-related Pelasgian?
> >
> As I said before, because it has a voiceless aspirated /pH/
> corresponding to PIE series I instead of voiceless /p/ like in
> *native* Greek.
> > > As regarding Pelasgian, I've just consulted Windekens (1952):Of what? Of Georgiev's Thracian-related Pelasgian? Or of various non-Greek words in Greek?
> > > "Le Pélasgique. Essai sur une langue indo-européenne
> > > préhellenique" and I've found some of the proposed etymologies
> > > to be reasonable, while other are incorrect.
> >
> > Why are you now quoting Windekens? I thought we were talking about
> > Georgiev's Thracian-related Pelasgian? Showing IE-ness is not
> > enough then.
> >
> because Windekens gives more detailed etymologies than Georgiev.
> > > Greek bólinthos 'wild bull' < IE *bhel- 'to swell'Which authors? Georgiev? Windekens? Both? More?
> > > presumably identified as foreign by the supposedly Anatolian
> > > -inthos, thus not Thracian
> >
> According to these authors, Thracian had *-intH- from IE *-ent-.
> > > Greek khrónos 'time' < IE *(s)ker- 'to cut'No, but I'm still not convinced.
> > Unconvincing.
> >
> Have you got a better alternative?
> > > Greek phelleús 'rocky terrain' < IE *pels- 'rock, crag'The important thing is that the irregularities between German and French makes IE-ness dubious.
> > German Fels, but French falaise. Irregular, thus not necessarily
> > IE.
> >
> The important thing is /pH/ instead of /p/.
> > > Greek púndax 'bottom of a vessel' < IE *bhudh-no- ~ nativeCap'n Haddock? I recall he did, but these data point to something wider.
> > > puthme:n 'bottom, base'
> > irregular, and
> > UEW
> > 'puntз (~ -ksз) 'Boden, Grund' Finno-Permian
> > Tscher. KB pÉ^ndaÅ¡, J pÅndaÅ¡, (Beke: FUF 22: 107) JP
> > pÅntakÅ¡ 'Boden (KB JP U B), Grund (KB JP U)' |
> > wotj. S pides, K pÉ^des, (Wichm.) G pîdes 'Boden, Grund' |
> >
> Very interesting. Do you know somebody whose name I don't want to
> mention proposed there was an IE-satem substrate in Saami?
> > > Greek púrgos 'tower' < IE *bhºrgh- (actually aand therefore weakens claims of IE-ness.
> > > Vasco-Caucasian Wanderwort)
> >
> > thus not IE
> >
> But this refers to the ultimate origin,
> as you've got also GermanicAnd Arabic burj.
> *burg- and Celtic *briga-.
> > > Greek términthos 'terebinth' < IE *deru- 'tree, oak'I'll have to take that back, since
> > Anatolian -inthos. "tree" + suffix? Unconvincing.
> >
> Any alternative?
> > > Greek túmbos 'tomb' ~ native táphos 'tomb' < IE *dhºmbh-Which means you claim that.
> > > (actually a VC loanword)
> > > so not IE; more likely related to the various "darkness" words.
> >
> > Not really. This is actually a root 'hill, bank' > 'burial mound'.
> > > Anyway, a large part of the Pre-Greek substrate (which I mustwhich you think can't be attributed to a single language
> > > insist it can't be attributed to a single language as Beekes do)
> > > isn't of IE origin, but at least a part of it is related toWithout saying so? And change it back again, without saying so (see above:
> > > Etruscan. For example Greek ksánthos 'yellow, blonde' can be
> > > linked to Etruscan zamathi 'gold' (/z/ = [ts]). This is why I'd
> > > prefer to keep the name "Pelasgian" for the Etruscan-related
> > > substrate and Thracian for the IE substrate described by
> > > Georgiev et al.
> >
> > No, you don't.
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/69332
> > 'pséphas must be a "Pelasgian" (a variety of Thracian) loanword, '
> >
> I've got the right to change my previous definition, haven't I?