The oddities of Basque

[Talskubilos]

The thing is the +2000 lexical items commonly reconstructed for PIE can't be from a single language.

No-one seriously claims they are. Even the people who made the reconstruction usually admit that it’s an imperfect process. (And if they don’t, they’re a crackpot.)

Interestingly, some of these protoforms ("roots" in the traditional terminology) have correspondences between them and also with non-IE languages (usually ignored by most IE-ists).

On the other hand, IE morphology (espceially the verbal ones) doesn't fit very well into the single common ancestor/classical genealogical tree model.

How so? I’d be interested to see a specific example.

Take for example the medio-passive verb suffix *-r in Italic, Celtic, Anatolian and Tocharian, or the "augment prefix" *h₁e- in Indo-Iranian and Greek.

[Richard W]

Rather, the best definition of language classification I’ve yet seen is that given in the Koch paper linked above:

A language (or dialect) Y at a given time is said to be descended from language (or dialect) X of an earlier time if and only if X developed into Y by an unbroken sequence of instances of native-language acquisition by children.

According to this definition — which as far as I can see seems to be consensus amongst historical linguists — a language could be PIE even if most of its vocabulary were to be non-PIE, as long as it has inherited PIE vocabulary and morphology through native-language acquisition.

By that definition, I rather suspect that quite a few accepted IE languages aren't. Does having the local dialect beaten into you in the school playground count as native-language acquisition?

[Zju]

So what? No-one is claiming that ‘X is a PIE language’ means that ‘every X word is descended from PIE’, or even that ‘most X words are directly inherited from PIE’ (cf Armenian). Rather, the best definition of language classification I’ve yet seen is that given in the Koch paper linked above:

A language (or dialect) Y at a given time is said to be descended from language (or dialect) X of an earlier time if and only if X developed into Y by an unbroken sequence of instances of native-language acquisition by children.

According to this definition — which as far as I can see seems to be consensus amongst historical linguists — a language could be PIE even if most of its vocabulary were to be non-PIE, as long as it has inherited PIE vocabulary and morphology through native-language acquisition.

The thing is the +2000 lexical items commonly reconstructed for PIE can't be from a single language. On the other hand, IE morphology (espceially the verbal ones) doesn't fit very well into the single common ancestor/classical genealogical tree model.

Proof? Otherwise that is yet another unsubstantiated claim.

The thing is the +2000 lexical items commonly reconstructed for PIE can't be from a single language.

No-one seriously claims they are. Even the people who made the reconstruction usually admit that it’s an imperfect process. (And if they don’t, they’re a crackpot.)

Interestingly, some of these protoforms ("roots" in the traditional terminology) have correspondences between them and also with non-IE languages (usually ignored by most IE-ists).

Most of these "correspondences" that you have suggested have been refuted as chance resemblances.

[Pabappa]

what is the central dispute about here? from what i understand, we're arguing over whether Indo-European languages are descended from a single common ancestor, or whether they are an areal grouping of clusters of smaller families like Altaic is. obviously almost all scholars agree that there is a single common ancestor, and the evidence is plain. i dont see how this ties into Basque though ... are these two unrelated arguments, or does this tie into Basque somehow? thanks.

[Nortaneous]

No-one seriously claims they are. Even the people who made the reconstruction usually admit that it’s an imperfect process. (And if they don’t, they’re a crackpot.)

Interestingly, some of these protoforms ("roots" in the traditional terminology) have correspondences between them and also with non-IE languages (usually ignored by most IE-ists).

Most of these "correspondences" that you have suggested have been refuted as chance resemblances.

Protolanguages having to be reconstructed with a handful of words that look a lot like words in nearby protolanguages seems like the norm. There was probably a lot more borrowing (incl. sometimes even of basic vocabulary) than there is today, because a lot more multilingualism.

[WeepingElf]

I don't follow your logic here. Natural languages have tens of thousands of words. The point with most proto-languages is rather the opposite - we are only able to reconstruct a small part of what was actually there, because languages constantly replace words and a large number of words that must have existed in PIE have been replaced in all daughter languages.

It isn't about quantity but internal and external relationships. For most IE-ists, it looks like PIE and its "daughter" languages existed within a bubble.

I actually find the opposite, that (certain) IE-ists will attribute any innovation found in Proto-Germanic, Proto-Greek, Proto-Celtic, etc, to substrate influence.

Opinions vary across linguists, and in some times, substratum theories have been more fashionable than in others. In Romance linguistics, substratum theories were all the rage in the first half of the 20th century, when people attempted to attribute such things as the Gallo-Romance fronting of /u/ to a Celtic substratum; however, those theories are now out of favour as it has turned out that the Romance linguistic landscape has very little in common with the linguistic landscape of pre-Roman Europe. For instance, Gaulish exhibited no /u/-fronting, and the Romance language and dialect boundaries mostly do not coincide with pre-Roman language boundaries (and where they do, that's because there is a mountain range or whatever that inhibited contact both before and after the Roman conquest such that it doesn't surprise anyone that there is a language boundary there).

And that's not just a Romance thing. Today, there is a widespread disinclination towards substrata; even such things as the typological "weirdness" of Insular Celtic (VSO word order, initial mutations and all that) are now usually explained by internal factors, certainly to a large degree because the Semitic substratum theory for Insular Celtic was too far-fetched, and explaining these developments by an unknown substratum isn't really worth anything - you can always invoke an "unknown language" to explain whatever you want to explain.

[keenir]

Thankfully, even the worst of linguistic crackpots don’t tend to make this mistake. Rather, I suspect he is conflating loaning and stratum influences with ancestry: IE branches have lots of loanwords from substrates, therefore IE cannot exist.

But these "substrates" are still a very large part of the IE lexicon, so IMHO the std PIE model is an oversimplification.

My great-grandparents came over from Italy, and moved to Philly, PA, USA...they and their kids picked up a Philly accent and Philly English.

Are you saying my great-grandparents and my grandparents are therefore not Italian because of that??

[keenir]

The thing is the +2000 lexical items commonly reconstructed for PIE can't be from a single language.

No-one seriously claims they are. Even the people who made the reconstruction usually admit that it’s an imperfect process. (And if they don’t, they’re a crackpot.)

Interestingly, some of these protoforms ("roots" in the traditional terminology) have correspondences between them and also with non-IE languages (usually ignored by most IE-ists).

Ignored by - WHO?? you keep making that accusation, yet you shy away from naming names. (surely the nice folks here aren't the only IE experts you can think of when PIE comes to mind)

[Richard W]

Interestingly, some of these protoforms ("roots" in the traditional terminology) have correspondences between them and also with non-IE languages (usually ignored by most IE-ists).

Should the presence of doublets in PIE be a surprise?

[Talskubilos]

Should the presence of doublets in PIE be a surprise?

And even triplets!

[hwhatting]

The thing is the +2000 lexical items commonly reconstructed for PIE can't be from a single language.

Saying "they can't be" is just an apodictic claim. What makes it impossible? That doesn't mean that they have to be all formed inside PIE. Some words that have been discussed as loans into IE by respected scholars are basic words as the word for "6" and "7", or *peleḱus "axe". So my objections against the "horse" word being a loan are not based on some idea that there never were loans into PIE, but, as I said, on the word having an internal IE etymology.

On the other hand, IE morphology (espceially the verbal ones) doesn't fit very well into the single common ancestor/classical genealogical tree model.

I assume you mean something like the two different ending sets for the active and the mediopassive-perfect conjugations? That doesn't convince me. Semitic languages have something similar, IIRC. And languages with morphology coming from two different parents are extremely rare.

[Talskubilos]

The thing is the +2000 lexical items commonly reconstructed for PIE can't be from a single language.

Saying "they can't be" is just an apodictic claim. What makes it impossible? That doesn't mean that they have to be all formed inside PIE. Some words that have been discussed as loans into IE by respected scholars are basic words as the word for "6" and "7", or *peleḱus "axe". So my objections against the "horse" word being a loan are not based on some idea that there never were loans into PIE, but, as I said, on the word having an internal IE etymology.

The thing is many words are only found in some IE branches but not in others, and quite often, a "PIE" root A is related to another B, and in some cases, also to C. These facts, together with external correspondences, leaded me to that "apodictic claim".

[keenir]

The thing is the +2000 lexical items commonly reconstructed for PIE can't be from a single language.

Saying "they can't be" is just an apodictic claim. What makes it impossible? That doesn't mean that they have to be all formed inside PIE. Some words that have been discussed as loans into IE by respected scholars are basic words as the word for "6" and "7", or *peleḱus "axe". So my objections against the "horse" word being a loan are not based on some idea that there never were loans into PIE, but, as I said, on the word having an internal IE etymology.

The thing is many words are only found in some IE branches but not in others,

You're shocked that, say, the IE equivilents of Hungarian and Kazykh {deeeply inland} don't have words for whales and galleons, while the branches that are within spitting distance of a coastline do?

and quite often, a "PIE" root A is related to another B, and in some cases, also to C.

*gasp* roots are related? holy shite, who would have suspected that relatives could be related?!!?

[Talskubilos]

Interestingly, some of these protoforms ("roots" in the traditional terminology) have correspondences between them and also with non-IE languages (usually ignored by most IE-ists).

Most of these "correspondences" that you have suggested have been refuted as chance resemblances.

[Talskubilos]

and quite often, a "PIE" root A is related to another B, and in some cases, also to C.

*gasp* roots are related? holy shite, who would have suspected that relatives could be related?!!?

A good example would be *prt-u- 'passage, way' (Latin portus, Germanic *furθ. Celtic *φritu- corresponding to *bhrodh-o- (Slavic) ~ *bhred- 'to wade, to jump' (Balto-Slavic, Albanian).

[hwhatting]

A good example would be *prt-u- 'passage, way' (Latin portus, Germanic *furθ. Celtic *φritu- corresponding to *bhrodh-o- (Slavic) ~ *bhred- 'to wade, to jump' (Balto-Slavic, Albanian).

I see. That is the kind of "deep reconstruction" I've seen elsewhere on the net where all labials (dental, velar) can stand in for any other labial (dental, velar) etc. As this kind of thing is basically not falsifiable, I find it rather useless.
As for the concrete example you're citing - the etymon behind portus etc, is a verbal noun in -tu- noun produced in accordance with well-known rules from the root *per-; that root is also attested in Slavic and Albanian, in those languages, just that specific noun is not attested. But the noun is attested widely enough (there's also Avestan pərətu- ‘bridge’) that it can be safely assumed not to be just a North-Western regionalism, but reconstructed for PIE. *bhred- seems limited to Balto-Slavic and Albanian, although there are place names in Continental Celtic and Thracian that may contain the root*). But you're basically comparing a derived noun with a root.
*) Based on the limited distribution, *bhredh- would even be a plausible candidate for a substrate word. OTOH, it may as well be a root-extension of a simpler root; there are several roots of the type *bher-C- that have to do with movement.

[keenir]

and quite often, a "PIE" root A is related to another B, and in some cases, also to C.

*gasp* roots are related? holy shite, who would have suspected that relatives could be related?!!?

A good example would be *prt-u- 'passage, way' (Latin portus, Germanic *furθ. Celtic *φritu- corresponding to *bhrodh-o- (Slavic) ~ *bhred- 'to wade, to jump' (Balto-Slavic, Albanian).

So...relatives are related...like i said.

Interestingly, some of these protoforms ("roots" in the traditional terminology) have correspondences between them and also with non-IE languages (usually ignored by most IE-ists).

Most of these "correspondences" that you have suggested have been refuted as chance resemblances.

Could you explain your reaction?...you know, for those of us who are not the PIE expert you are.

[alice]

A good example would be *prt-u- 'passage, way' (Latin portus, Germanic *furθ. Celtic *φritu- corresponding to *bhrodh-o- (Slavic) ~ *bhred- 'to wade, to jump' (Balto-Slavic, Albanian).

I see. That is the kind of "deep reconstruction" I've seen elsewhere on the net where all labials (dental, velar) can stand in for any other labial (dental, velar) etc. As this kind of thing is basically not falsifiable, I find it rather useless.

In any case, "bh" (/bʰ/) became /b/ in Balto-Slavic and Albanian, not /p/, and I'm not aware of any alternations between /p/ and /b/ in Slavic.

[WeepingElf]

A good example would be *prt-u- 'passage, way' (Latin portus, Germanic *furθ. Celtic *φritu- corresponding to *bhrodh-o- (Slavic) ~ *bhred- 'to wade, to jump' (Balto-Slavic, Albanian).

I see. That is the kind of "deep reconstruction" I've seen elsewhere on the net where all labials (dental, velar) can stand in for any other labial (dental, velar) etc. As this kind of thing is basically not falsifiable, I find it rather useless.

In any case, "bh" (/bʰ/) became /b/ in Balto-Slavic and Albanian, not /p/, and I'm not aware of any alternations between /p/ and /b/ in Slavic.

I think this is one of the items on Georg Holzer's list of "Temematic" loanwords in Slavic. (To those who don't know: Holzer claims to have found 45 words in Slavic with "wrong" manners of articulation of the stops, which he ascribes to a lost IE language in which the PIE voiceless stops had become voiced, and the breathy-voiced stops had becme voiceless. Few scholars find this convincing, though.)

[Pabappa]

i think you all are missing the point .... none of these criticisms hold water if you accept that the languages are of different groups in the first place .... youre essntially trying to prove PIE is monogenic by assuming that PIE is monogenic and then listing examples of roots that follow sound changes presumed to have taken place in early IE days. but none of these arguments are going to convince PIE skeptics of anything.