From: dgkilday57
Message: 71184
Date: 2013-04-11
>This has nothing to do with Casule or Burushaski. I posit practical copper technology originating in the Balkans and spreading to Sumeria along with the Balkano-Danubian word for 'red (metal), copper'.
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@> wrote:
> >
> > Sumerian _urud_ 'copper' (the -u is the Akkadian nominative suffix
> from glossaries) is in my opinion borrowed from Balkano-Danubian *wrod-
> 'red',
> >
> Perhaps a better reconstruction would be *wrud-. However, it's anything
> but easy to explain how the word could have reached Southern Mesopotamy
> from the Balkans, unless you align yourself with Casule and his theory
> of Burushaski being an offshoot of Paleo-Balkan IE.
> > cognate with PIE *h1r(e)udH-.Among well-known IE languages, initial laryngeals in this position are generally dropped outside Greek and Armenian. This laryngeal is no prefix, but part of the root. What convinced me that so-called prothetic vowels in Greek reflect initial preconsonantal laryngeals is the elegant way they clear up the problem of so-called Attic reduplication. Attempts to explain this phenomenon without laryngeals have not succeeded.
> >
> As I said before, Greek e- in words such as e-ruthrós is a *prefix*,
> possibly from a fossilized article *?i- (hence h1 = ?), so the bare root
> would be *reudh- ~ *rudh- (please notice I keep traditional "voiced
> aspirated" for the sake of clarity, not because I endorse them).
> Otherwise, you'd have a hard time explaining sound correspondences of
> the initial consonant.
> > We are not talking about a specialized color like mauve or taupe. AllNo. Such a shift is not necessary.
> of us have cut ourselves and seen blood, and we label it red.
> >
> Are you suggesting the original meaning of the word was 'blood', later
> shifted to 'red'?
> > "Balkano-Danubian" is what I used to call "West Pontic" until I foundNo, 'rose' has nothing to do with the 'thorn-bush' word unless you follow Georgiev with his PIE *wrudH- > Pelasgian *wrud-. The correct cognate of Lat. _rubus_ is OE _word_, of identical meaning. The discrepancy between *rudHo- in Italic and *wr.dHo- in Germanic (*wurDa- > *worDa- with /a/-umlaut) is parallel to that between *lukWo- 'wolf' in Italic (Sabine *lup(o)s > Latin _lupus_) in Italic, Greek, and Illyrian, and *wl.kWo- in Germanic, Indo-Iranian, and other groups (with *ulkWo- in Celtic). Likewise combining forms of 'four': *kWetru-, *kWetwr.-, *kWetur-. I suspect this is due to labialized liquids in Old PIE developing different reflexes in (Late) PIE according to their position in compounds, due to the Old PIE accent. Most IE branches generalized one reflex or another.
> that other mid-rangers had already used "Pontic" in a different sense.
> >
> As an alias of classical PIE, for example.
>
> > The borrowings of *wrod- into IE lgs. mostly mean 'rose',
> >
> Not really. This is a different root 'thorny bush' found in Italic
> *ruTo- 'bramble' > Latin rubus and North Germanic *wruT-/*wrud-
> 'sweetbrier' > Norwegian ol, orr, erre, Swedish arre. Also Tuscan
> dialectal forms such as rasa, ràzina, razzòla must derive from
> Etruscan *rathia.
> > It seems to me that Schrijver, Kroonen, and their ilk should beThat is a major part of the problem, yes. Contributions to Greek from Illyrian, Thracian, and other IE lgs. must be weeded out before attempting to characterize Pre-Greek.
> > putting more effort into identifying and characterizing Indo-European
> > substrate languages before shoehorning everything without an obvious
> > etymology in attested languages into a Pre-IE substrate.
> >
> > > Contrarily to Beekes, which (rather naïvely) considers Pre-Greek
> to
> > > be a *single* language, I think they're several substrates, both IE
> and
> > > non-IE. One of these is Georgiev's "Pelasgian", roughly equivalent
> to
> > > your "West Pontic". Unfortunately, one can't expect these an other
> > > ortodox IE-ists to made significant advances unless there's a change
> of
> > > paradigm in IE studies.
> >
> > Georgiev's Pelasgian is a hypothetical satem language, which is not at
> the same time-depth as my "West Pontic" (now "Balkano-Danubian"), a
> sister language to Old PIE. [...] My view is that the Pre-Greek
> substrate proper was Balkano-Danubian Chalcolithic, but some relics of
> an earlier East Mediterranean Neolithic substrate are recoverable.
> >
> Actually, Georgiev's own chronology is Neolithic, so it's *older* than
> yours, which leans towards the Kurgan theory. In fact, he regarded his
> Pre-Greek IE substrate as descending from the languages spoken by
> Mesolithic autochthonous hunter-gatherers, so in that sense he was a
> "continuist", although certainly not in the same way than Alinei et al.
>
> In my opinion, the problem lies on the misidentification of Pelasgian
> with Thracian, an actual (although poorly attested) IE-satem language,
> which nevertheless contributed (in the same way than e.g. Phrygian) to
> Greek lexicon with some loanwords. This explains why most of Georgiev's
> and Windekens' (especially the latter) Pre-Greek IE etymologies are
> flawed.
> > Pelasgian was effectively dismantled in a series of papers by D.A.The principal paper of his in this connection is "'Pelasgian' - a new Indo-European language?", Lingua 13:335-84, 1965, with additional material in "Methods of identifying loan-word strata in Greek", Lingua 18:168-78, 1967, and "Recent developments in Mediterranean 'substrate' studies", Minos 9(2):219-35, 1968. Of vital importance (though not critical of G.) is H.'s earlier paper "Pre-Greek place-names in Greece and Asia Minor", Rev. Hitt. Asian. 15(61):107-19, 1957. G.'s methodology was roundly criticized already by M. Lejeune in "Linguistique pre'helle'nique", Rev. E't. Anc. 49:25-37, 1947.
> Hester.
> >
> Really? I never heard of this guy. Your statement sounds like
> "Penicillin was discovered by A. Fleming", a well-known fact.
> > The main problem I have with Beekes is his insistence (followingNeither equation is particularly convincing, and the Whalenoid notation gJ for g^ is unwarranted, since nothing suggests that *g^ originated by palatalizing *g in Old PIE. More likely the former was originally velar, the latter uvular, with the satem group maintaining the distinction while advancing both articulations forward, while the centum group moved only the uvulars forward and merged them with the velars.
> Furne'e, his former student) that Pre-Greek had a few-phoneme system.
> This is a result of F.'s faulty methodology, by which regional
> variations in PG words are treated haphazardly instead of being used to
> develop PG dialectology. If F.'s method were applied to English, the
> words _bludgeon_ and _truncheon_ would be regarded as continuing one and
> the same Pre-English word.
> >
> > What actually happens with a few-phoneme substrate is illustrated by
> Hawai'ian place-names. The phonemes remain few when the names are
> adapted into English. Pre-Greek place-names look nothing like that.
> But insistence on few phonemes has led Beekes to reject the Eteo-Cretan
> inscriptions as something other than Pre-Greek, unnecessarily
> complicating matters and throwing away good information.
> >
> Eteocretan isalabre 'goat cheese' can be analyzed as a compound
> *isa-lawre, where *isa would be related to IE *aigJ-o- 'goat' and *lawre
> to Greek tu:rós 'cheese'. In my opinion, this and other evidences
> would suggest Minoan/Eteocretan was a *superstrate* to the actual
> Pelasgian.