From: H.M. Hubey
Message: 719
Date: 2003-06-23
> Richard:The question is more complex. There are other factors which nobody takes
> What do you mean by 'introduced'? If you mean came in as loan words, then
> Hittite hapalzil and parSur can't be Nostratic. Or are you talking
> about a
> more restricted swathe of land?
>That is another problem. I see substratum. It occurs in India along with
>
> Mark:
> maybe some people moved into the Mideast-anatolia region with liquids.
>
> Richard:
> That's yet another aspect to the issue. A similar case is retroflexes in
> the Indic (i.e. indo-Aryan) languages. Some retroflex stops were
> developed
> internally, and then some other allophones and phonemes were
> interpreted as
> also being retroflex. Additional words with retroflexes were
> borrowed. The
> change might have been facilitated by interaction with speakers who
> already
> had them. Scanning the literature, one could be tempted to suspect
> there's
> something in the water that causes retroflexes :-)
>I read Buck (several times) and read Watkins (several times). I do my
>
>
> Richard:
> Either borrowed or 'invented'. English 'parch' first appears in the 14th
> century, and cannot be traced back to anything earlier.
>
> Mark:
> I think lots of words in English cannot be traced back. Did you seriously
> read Watkins' book?
> See how funny some of those etymologies are.
>
> Richard:
> My etymological bed-time reading was Onions' Oxford Etmological
> Dictionary.
>There are thrre roots *bheug. But there is a real word bUk in Turkic and
>
> Mark:
> See my post on Aturan on the derivation of "elbow", or try Watkins'
> derivation of "estuary'" and dozens of others.
>
> Richard:
> The reference to Aturan is to 'aturan-languages', and it's message
> 2160, not
> 2444. The latter discusses a possible cognate of English 'knee', PIE
> g^enu-, though connections to PIE are not on that group's manifest agenda.
>
> Onions gives a less complex variant of the same story - one word, PIE
> *olena: seems to account for the Germanic *alina: (typo for *alino:,
> surely?) as well as Latin ulna:, and for all I know, the Celtic forms,
> e.g.
> OIr u(i)len and Welsh elin. (It seems that umlaut has eliminated any
> differences between *alina: and *elina:, so extant Germanic forms
> don't show
> which form Proto-Germanic had.) Greek's got three froms for elbow -
> o:léne:, o:lé:r and ôllon. I _think_ it is complicated because PIE
> started
> out with a heteroclitic stem *olen- (*oler in the nominative singular) and
> then it got regularised independently in the duaghter languages. The
> meaning's a but vague - for example Scott & Liddell says of the Greek
> form,
> 'the elbow, or rather the arn from the elobw to the wrist, the lower arm,
> Latn ulna: generally, an arm'. In English, the basic word is represented
> by 'ell'.
>
> English 'elbow' and its Germanic cognates are compounds of 'ell' and
> 'bow'.
> Old English elnboga (which occurs as well as 'elgoba', the only form you
> quote from Watkins), Old High German elinbogo and Old Norse o,lnbogi
> illustrate the compounding summed up in Proto-Germanic *alinobogon.
>
> The word for 'bow', the weapon, is 'boga' in Old English; the change of
> unsoftened, intervocalic g > w is a regular change from Old English to
> Middle English. It's a weak noun in Old English, i.e. the oblique cases
> have -n-, and in German its uninflected 'Bogen'. (The OHG nominative
> singular was 'bogo'.) West Germanic languages were very fond of forming
> weak nouns (and of course, we have the weak form of the adjective with the
> same suffix), whence what you refer to as "parasitic 'n'".
>
> The issue of non-Germanic cognates of 'bow' and 'bow' (both the
> homonyms) is
> complicated. The Germanic forms point to PIE *bHeugH-, but the other
> languages (Greek, Latin and Sanskrit, at least - I haven't checked Pokorny
> for other languages) point to PIE *bHeug.
> There are several other casesIn how many branches of IE does it show up?
> where there is inconsistency in the phonation of a final velar in the
> root.
> Many just shrug their shoulders and say 'different stem extension', but a
> similar problem has been noticed in Austronesian. Maybe you'd like to
> check
> out the explanation that's been offered there - voicing differences
> are less
> obvious the further back in the mouth that closure is made, so the
> opportunity for children mislearning words is higher.
>
> The etymology is complex, but:
> (a) Words for parts of the limbs seen to change their reference easily.
> (b) Ablaut seems to have left PIE full of surface irregularities,
> which have
> been resolved differently in the daughter languages. A modern
> parallel is
> Polish.
>
> In short, I see no significant problem with the normal etymology.
>I am merely pointing out more patterns than Pokorny.
>
> Richard:
> For Indo-European, I am not aware of any problems with applying the set of
> correspondences associated with PIE *d to PIE *h1ed. If you want to say
> that PIE *d was not [d], you are in good company; that is a different
> issue.
> But please don't change the PIE citation form for that reason, treat
> it as a
> spelling with odd conventions if you dislike it. This avoids
> confusion. If
> the 'spelling' offends you, why not cite it as a spelling - PIE *<d>?
>Look at pecor and pecud. * pecudh. From *dh I also derive both r and z.
>
> Mark:
> For example, it is said that Altaic had an initial-p that changed to a
> bilabial fricative and disappeared
> but apparently along the way it also became h in some places. One of the
> classics is Doerfer's *pOkUrz (ox)
> from which he gets OkUz, OkUr, hOkur, hOkUz etc. Now it so happens
> that this
> word looks too much
> like pecus (IE cattle) to be an accident. So why cannot the same thing
> happen to *parsh? *pash? And
> what if it had an even earlier form which could have given rise to eat.
>
> Richard:
> The biggest problem I can see in relating Doerfer's *pOkUrz and PIE
> *pek^u-
> is that the <s> of Latin pecus is not part of the root. Germanic and
> Indo-Iranian show only a stem in peku-. Latin has (citing just the
> forms in
> my pocket dictionary):
>
> 1. pecu: 'flock of sheep', stem pecu-, neuter.
> 2. pecus 'cattle, herd, flock; animal', stem pecor-, neuter.
> 3. pecus 'sheep, head of cattle, beast', stem pecud-, feminine.
>
> Only no. 2 has the right stem. Note that the final consonant has
> developed
> from /s/, with the nominative and accusative singular retaining /s/
> becuase
> it was not followed by a vowel.
>I said Doerfer did *pOkUrz not me.
> Incidentally, a loan of a pre-PIE animate nominative singular *pakuz to
> Altaic might appeal to some people, but I don't think the timing is right.
>Turkologists are mostly bad linguists. They have to rules. It was
>
> Mark:
> PS. There is no Altaic. Clauson showed this circa 1950.
>
> Richard:
> Obviously not convincing enough. Do you want to expand on this statement,
> or is it an irrelevant aside? What's your working hypothesis? The
> only way
> I can see to demonstrate 'not true', as opposed to 'not proven', is to
> show
> that is not a natural grouping, e.g. by showing that Turkic is more
> closely
> related to Indo-European or Finno-Ugrian that to Mongolian.