Paleo-European languages

[Kuchigakatai]

Why do you rule out the e-grade? After a plain velar, the Latin e-grade has a strong tendency to wind up as /a/ - doesn't that also apply to diphthongs?

Maybe it's an oversight of De Vaan's. I'm not going to claim I'm closely familiar with (most ideas of) how PIE > Latin happened. If ke- > ka- without a h2 in sight is a thing, then that sounds beautiful to defend caesius as an IE word.

[Talskubilos]

The a coloring after a velar in Latin (e.g. canis 'dog' < *ken-) might be due to the consonant being originally an uvular. But I don't think this could be the case of caesius.

[Ares Land]

Seriously, though, if there is to be borrowing between branches/dialects, they must have been in reasonable proximity. Say the ancestor of proto-Italic borrowed a word from the ancestor of Hittite. That must have happened when "proto-proto-Italic" and "proto-Hittite" speakers could be in contact, not when proto-Italic speakers lived in Italy and Hittites in Anatolia.

I'm afraid you're a bit too confident in proto-languages and the classical genealogical tree model, which I think it's an oversimplification (a huge one in the case PIE). For example, Latin sanctus 'saint' and sacer 'holy' < *sa(n)k- is cognate to Hittite šāklāi-/šākli- 'custom, rule', and the only correspondences in other IE languages would be Greek hágios 'holy', házomai 'to dread' and Sanskrit yájati 'workships' < IE *yag'-.

Sorry, but I don't understand what you mean by that. All I say is that borrowing should occur when speakers are close together, which seems fairly straightforward.

Besides, what is your model for PIE?

[Talskubilos]

Sorry, but I don't understand what you mean by that. All I say is that borrowing should occur when speakers are close together, which seems fairly straightforward.

Sorry for the confusion, because my point was about a Latin-Hittite isogloss which in the std PIE model has no correspondences in the rest of IE languages.

Besides, what is your model for PIE?

My idea is the reconstructed PIE (understood as a set of lexical and morphological items) isn't a monolithic entity but instead is made up of several strata or layers, which can be identified through internal and external comparison with other families, namely East Caucasian, Semitic, Altaic, and secondarily also Uralic and Kartvelian. A simple example I mentioned before would be the fossilized lexeme *k'mt- found in several IE numerals ('100' and tens), which is the origin of Germanic xandu- 'hand' and it's also cognate to Semitic '5'.

[Talskubilos]

There's a Paleo-European lexeme *kswoj-/*skwoj- 'needles (of a conifer), thorn' with Mitian pedigree and found in northern IE languages. Apparently, in East Caucasian the same lexeme is part of the fossilized compound *Hnǝ̄-ttsˀwē/*ttsˀwǝ̄-nHē 'reed, cane', which corresponds to IE *yoini- (Latin iuncus 'reed', iūniperus 'juniper'), where EC *ttsˀw ~ *yo. Furthermore, both forms of the Caucasian word were respectively borrowed into IE *nedo- 'reed, rush' and *don- 'reed', with the same collapse of dorsal affricates into dental stops as in Semitic from Bomhard's Nostratic, glottalic theory included.

[WeepingElf]

Gobbledygook.

[Ares Land]

My idea is the reconstructed PIE (understood as a set of lexical and morphological items) isn't a monolithic entity (...)

I think you don't quite understand the nature of my objections. I don't object to your view of PIE at all. Indeed I think you're building the standard view of PIE as a strawman.

My objections, instead, are these:

1) Lack of evidence
For instance, are we seriously supposed to believe that *kswoj-/*skwoj-, first is a thing, second is cognate to *Hnǝ̄-ttsˀwē/*ttsˀwǝ̄-nHē, third that these are cognate to *yoini, and third that it would have been borrowed as *nedo or *don just because you say so?

2) I don't think you quite understand how likely chance resemblances are. Remember haben and habeo are not cognate. With that in mind, maybe you'd understand why I'm not prepared to accept your cognates.
Naturally enoguh, once you accept vaguely similar words as cognate, of course, you're going to find all kinds of links with PIE.
I mean, why not link PIE *deiwo- to Nahuatl teo- while you're at it? (*)

That last post of yours is really, the icing of the cake. At this stage, you could practically pick any word -- hell, why pick a real word? just invent one and claim it exists -- and link it to IE, proto-Bantu, proto-Semitic and Linear A.

3) You seem to have built quite the self-image of a brave outsider daring to face the linguistics establishment.
I think you've built up conventional linguistics ideas as a strawman. Plus, again, you feel it allows you to make any claim without any particular evidence. I mean, look at the *comberos thing again: you're simply positic a new Gaulish word without particular reason, and criticizing the etymology while ignoring the actual reconstructed meaning.

Very ancient languages send us a very weak signal, barely discernable above the static. Sure, we can amplify the signal: but there's always the risk of amplifying the noise instead.
I'm afraid that you're amplifying a great deal of static.


(*) Please don't.

[Talskubilos]

1) Lack of evidence. For instance, are we seriously supposed to believe that *kswoj-/*skwoj-, first is a thing, second is cognate to *Hnǝ̄-ttsˀwē/*ttsˀwǝ̄-nHē, third that these are cognate to *yoini, and third that it would have been borrowed as *nedo or *don just because you say so?

Of course not, but in a blog entry or a paper I'd develop the context, including relevant bibliography, other correspondences and so on. For example, the "collapse" of dorsal affricates into dental stops in some Paleo-European proto-language was mentioned by Jörg Rhiemeier (WeepingElf) in FrathWiki, although I couldn't find it now because I think he modified the article.

To some extent, it looks like traditional PIE "palatovelars" were dorsal affricates. For example, this would explain Etruscan urth-an-ice '(he) made' from a 0-grade of IE *werg'- 'to work', and through borrowing also Celtic *ordo- (m.), *ordā (f.) 'hammer', with no inherited etymology.

That last post of yours is really, the icing of the cake. At this stage, you could practically pick any word -- hell, why pick a real word? just invent one and claim it exists -- and link it to IE, proto-Bantu, proto-Semitic and Linear A.

Sorry, but I'm not a conlanger. I don't invent words nor languages such as Proto-whatever.

3) You seem to have built quite the self-image of a brave outsider daring to face the linguistics establishment.

I'm afraid "insiders" think of comparative linguistics as a hard science when actually it's NOT. See below (*)

I think you've built up conventional linguistics ideas as a strawman. Plus, again, you feel it allows you to make any claim without any particular evidence. I mean, look at the *comberos thing again: you're simply positic a new Gaulish word without particular reason, and criticizing the etymology while ignoring the actual reconstructed meaning.

I'll tell you for the third and last time: In his REW, Meyer-Lübke reconstructs the protoform *komboro- (comboros), to which Coromines assigns the meaning 'heap, accumulation'. Unfortunately, this word happens to be quasi-homonymous to Celtic *kom-bero-, and so scholars conflated them. But I'm sure ignoring primary bibliography and relying on secondary sources such as Wiktionary is good.

Very ancient languages send us a very weak signal, barely discernable above the static. Sure, we can amplify the signal: but there's always the risk of amplifying the noise instead.

Yes, this is precisely what comparative linguists are doing all the time. (*)

I'm afraid that you're amplifying a great deal of static.

Perhaps I've got a better tuner than you think.

[Ares Land]

Of course not, but in a blog entry or a paper I'd develop the context, including relevant bibliography, other correspondences and so on. For example, the "collapse" of dorsal affricates into dental stops in some Paleo-European proto-language was mentioned by Jörg Rhiemeier (WeepingElf) in FrathWiki, although I couldn't find it now because I think he modified the article.

To some extent, it looks like traditional PIE "palatovelars" were dorsal affricates. For example, this would explain Etruscan urth-an-ice '(he) made' from a 0-grade of IE *werg'- 'to work', and through borrowing also Celtic *ordo- (m.), *ordā (f.) 'hammer', with no inherited etymology.

"I've totally got lots of evidence, but I can't show it to you at the time".
That Etruscan / Celtic... thing you've just posted is complete nonsense.

I'm afraid "insiders" think of comparative linguistics as a hard science when actually it's NOT. See below (*)

Either you're using scientific methods, or you just make stuff up. Obviously you've chosen the latter.

If anything, mainstream IE studies aren't conservative enough. Glancing through Pokorny, many reconstructions look dubious. (It's not just my opinion, either.)

'll tell you for the third and last time: In his REW, Meyer-Lübke reconstructs the protoform *komboro- (comboros), to which Coromines assigns the meaning 'heap, accumulation'. Unfortunately, this word happens to be quasi-homonymous to Celtic *kom-bero-, and so scholars conflated them. But I'm sure ignoring primary bibliography and relying on secondary sources such as Wiktionary is good.

Again: we have no particular reason to reconstruct it as *komboros or *komberos. Talking of secondary sources, again, our primary source on that is a bit of Medieval Latin with *combrus.
The only reason you reconstruct that word with o is on the basis of a spurious connection with Basque.

Perhaps I've got a better tuner than you think.

In that case you do a poor job of demonstrating it. Your works frankly strikes me as the linguistic equivalent of the perpetual motion machine or the water-fuelled car.

[WeepingElf]

For example, the "collapse" of dorsal affricates into dental stops in some Paleo-European proto-language was mentioned by Jörg Rhiemeier (WeepingElf) in FrathWiki, although I couldn't find it now because I think he modified the article.

I have no idea what you are talking about; I can't remember proposing anything like that, but anyway, if I edited it away, this is probably because I abandoned that idea again. And are you sure it wasn't a page about one of my conlangs?

[Talskubilos]

That Etruscan / Celtic... thing you've just posted is complete nonsense.

I'm sorry to disagree, and please forgive me for not replying to your further remarks. Have a good time.

[Talskubilos]

For example, the "collapse" of dorsal affricates into dental stops in some Paleo-European proto-language was mentioned by Jörg Rhiemeier (WeepingElf) in FrathWiki, although I couldn't find it now because I think he modified the article.

I have no idea what you are talking about; I can't remember proposing anything like that, but anyway, if I edited it away, this is probably because I abandoned that idea again. And are you sure it wasn't a page about one of my conlangs?

Yes, I'm sure, but I've got no interest in conlangs apart from proto-languages (which are themselves a kind of conlangs).

Apparently, words with these sound correspondences originated in some Paleo-European or Paleo-IE language and they surface in Etruscan but occasionally also in some IE languages. In particular, *don- is marked in Mallory&Adams as a West-Central (WC) regional word.

[Richard W]

Very ancient languages send us a very weak signal, barely discernable above the static. Sure, we can amplify the signal: but there's always the risk of amplifying the noise instead.

Yes, this is precisely what comparative linguists are doing all the time. (*)

I'm afraid that you're amplifying a great deal of static.

Perhaps I've got a better tuner than you think.

A good detector would give us a false alarm rate or even an indicator of statistical significance. Unfortunately, doing this seems to be very complicated and very sensitive to assumptions, and the people doing the detecting seem not to understand their detectors well enough to explain them.

I believe it is possible to validly come up with a statement such as "Here are 10 correspondences. At least 5 are true, but I don't know which ones are. The chance of my wrongly coming to this conclusion is less than one in a thousand."

[Richard W]

If anything, mainstream IE studies aren't conservative enough. Glancing through Pokorny, many reconstructions look dubious. (It's not just my opinion, either.)

Pokorny's work isn't mainstream - it's from a Brugmannian backwater. Additionally, the way to read a Pokorny entry for *word is, "PIE may have had a word/root *word. The following is the evidence for it." His aim seems to have been to capture all possible roots, not all roots that we can be confident of. Oddly enough though, he does seem to have missed a few roots.

[WeepingElf]

For example, the "collapse" of dorsal affricates into dental stops in some Paleo-European proto-language was mentioned by Jörg Rhiemeier (WeepingElf) in FrathWiki, although I couldn't find it now because I think he modified the article.

I have no idea what you are talking about; I can't remember proposing anything like that, but anyway, if I edited it away, this is probably because I abandoned that idea again. And are you sure it wasn't a page about one of my conlangs?

Yes, I'm sure, but I've got no interest in conlangs apart from proto-languages (which are themselves a kind of conlangs).

I have tried to remember what you claimed I had written it on a FrathWiki page you "couldn't find" because I have "modified the article" since then, but I sincerely cannot remember to have ever entertained that notion for any language (not even any of my conlangs, BTW). Perhaps someone else wrote that, but you are just misremembering who had written it? At any rate, I do not entertain the notion now for any language. It may have happened somewhere, but you just can't attribute it to me.

But be it as it may be: Saying that someone said something but "I can't tell you where because he has changed the page since then" is utterly unacceptable, because that way, you can claim anything. At least, you misattributed to me something harmless that "just happened" to corroborate your own ideas, but that doesn't really make it better. Also, even if someone once actually said something but later said that he was wrong and has changed his opinion since then you cannot treat it as if it was his current opinion.

And BTW: What once was written on FrathWiki is not lost, but kept in the history of the relevant page together with information on who wrote it (even histories of deleted pages are still kept on the server), so it would be recoverable.

[WeepingElf]

If anything, mainstream IE studies aren't conservative enough. Glancing through Pokorny, many reconstructions look dubious. (It's not just my opinion, either.)

Pokorny's work isn't mainstream - it's from a Brugmannian backwater. Additionally, the way to read a Pokorny entry for *word is, "PIE may have had a word/root *word. The following is the evidence for it." His aim seems to have been to capture all possible roots, not all roots that we can be confident of. Oddly enough though, he does seem to have missed a few roots.

Yes. It is out of date, one at least has to rewrite the PIE forms given there according to the system currently reconstructed (which in most cases is not terribly difficult, though I admit that there are pitfalls). Also, as you said, it heavily over-reconstructs, and lists many "PIE" roots which have very limited distribution and are probably either dialectal borrowings (where the few branches that have them are close to each other, e.g. Germanic and Celtic) or chance resemblances (where they are far away from each other, e.g. Italic and Indo-Aryan). Alas, no new dictionary fixing these problems has been published so far, so everybody still uses Pokorny. (Also, the over-reconstruction has the advantage to substratum hunters that the substratum words they are looking for are to a large part covered .)

[Talskubilos]

Yes. It is out of date, one at least has to rewrite the PIE forms given there according to the system currently reconstructed (which in most cases is not terribly difficult, though I admit that there are pitfalls). Also, as you said, it heavily over-reconstructs, and lists many "PIE" roots which have very limited distribution and are probably either dialectal borrowings (where the few branches that have them are close to each other, e.g. Germanic and Celtic) or chance resemblances (where they are far away from each other, e.g. Italic and Indo-Aryan).

Of course, these words are likely substrate borrowings, even in the case of "satem" loanwords in Western Europe.

[Skookum]

I'm not very knowledgeable on IE but I found this paper fascinating. I think he overdoes it a little bit at the end comparing Germanic *wisund 'bison' with OPruss. wissambs’, Lith. stumbras, Latv. sumbrs, sūbrs and OCS zǫbrь. The possible link between the pre-Germanic and pre-Greek substrates suggested by the prefix *a- and suffix *-indʰ ~ ind is especially interesting.

[Richard W]

At any rate, I do not entertain the notion now for any language. It may have happened somewhere, but you just can't attribute it to me.

For velars palatalising and then becoming dentals, that appears to be general opinion as to the origin of Egyptian 𓍿 ṯ and 𓆓 ḏ , which merged with 𓏏 t and 𓂧 d by the XVIIIth dynasty. A similar process is seen in Spanish soft <c> and in the Albanian development of the PIE palatovelars. I'm not quite sure what Tavi has in mind when he refers to dorsal affricates.

[Travis B.]

At any rate, I do not entertain the notion now for any language. It may have happened somewhere, but you just can't attribute it to me.

For velars palatalising and then becoming dentals, that appears to be general opinion as to the origin of Egyptian 𓍿 ṯ and 𓆓 ḏ , which merged with 𓏏 t and 𓂧 d by the XVIIIth dynasty. A similar process is seen in Spanish soft <c> and in the Albanian development of the PIE palatovelars. I'm not quite sure what Tavi has in mind when he refers to dorsal affricates.

When I think of dorsal affricates I think of [kx].