Re: Portuguese, Spanish bode "buck"

--- 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.
>
> 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'.
>

Possible, yes, but not sure. There're many possibilities, but certainly not all them actually happened.

> cognate with PIE *h1r(e)udH-.
>
> > 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.
>
> 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, the "laryngeal" is actually part of the prefix. On the other hand, you've got still to explain how *w- originated from *h1- (*?-).

> We are not talking about a specialized color like mauve or taupe. All
> 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'?
>
> No. Such a shift is not necessary.
>

Actually, mine was a rethoric question. According to your etymological proposal, I must suppose a meaning shift from 'rose' to 'red'.

> 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.
>
> No, '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.
>

That's right within IE, but this doesn't exclude additional cognates in Pelasgian and Etruscan.

> I discussed the Tuscan forms when dealing with Lat. _radius_ as a borrowing from Late Etruscan. I see no basis to connect them with any of the IE words, or with 'rose'.
>

But you can't ignore the fact roses *are* thorny bushes, so the semantic connection is sound.

> 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.
>
> That 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.
>

The problem is not all these are necessarily synchronic, so there's a good possibility we're dealing with several substrate layers of different chronologies. So Beekes' Pre-Greek might just be the more recent one.

> > 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.
>
> Neither 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.
>

Actually, this is about *notation*, not origin. I prefer to use std IPA symbols rather than "traditional" ones such as the "thorn", y, and so on.

> 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.
>

In some cases, palatalized velars originated from "centumization" of sibilant affricates, as in Caucasian loanwords such as *H1ekJw-o- 'horse'.