The oddities of Basque

[Talskubilos]

Northwest Group words like *h2ebol- and *bhabh- are reconstructed for PIE even though the mainstream position is that they were not inherited from the common ancestor of IE languages.

In fact, 'apple' happens to be a Wanderwort found in several families, including IE itself (although somewhat disguised).

According to Piotr Gąsiorowski, the numeral *kʷetwōr- '4' would be a derivative of a fossilized verb lexeme *kʷet- 'to group into pairs', which IMHO would be also the origin (through reduplication) of Lithuanian kek(e)tà 'detachment, flock' and Uralic *kakta ~ *kæktæ '2'. The latter would be cognate to IE *Hoḱte-h₃(u) '8', a fossilized dual whose original value appears to have been doubled.

Is that reduplication pattern attested elsewhere in either family?

AFAIK, this kind of reduplication C₁VC₂ -> C₁VC₁VC₂ is found in IE alone. See Piotr's blog for more details.

[keenir]

Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but from those forms, I would've expected the Proto-Indo-European ones to be something like *tkwe- (I believe we see dual initial clusters in PIE, at least)

Good point. PNWC *tˀ- looks like a fossilized prefix, so *qˀʷə would be the lexeme, corresponding to Daghestanian '2' (but Nakh '3', because in this group '2' was apparently borrowed from Semitic).

That seems...unlikely, at the very least for reasons of distance....without going back to the days of Akkadian, when were the Semitic languages neighbors of Nakh & friends?

At first glance/hearing, its like if I told you that Japanese borrowed words from Dravidian - the first question you'd have (i hope) is "when was that?"

[Talskubilos]

PNWC *tˀ- looks like a fossilized prefix, so *qˀʷə would be the lexeme, corresponding to Daghestanian '2' (but Nakh '3', because in this group '2' was apparently borrowed from Semitic).

That seems...unlikely, at the very least for reasons of distance....without going back to the days of Akkadian, when were the Semitic languages neighbors of Nakh & friends?

FYI, some Semitic numerals, especially '7', spread to other families as Wanderwörter.

[keenir]

PNWC *tˀ- looks like a fossilized prefix, so *qˀʷə would be the lexeme, corresponding to Daghestanian '2' (but Nakh '3', because in this group '2' was apparently borrowed from Semitic).

That seems...unlikely, at the very least for reasons of distance....without going back to the days of Akkadian, when were the Semitic languages neighbors of Nakh & friends?

FYI, some Semitic numerals, especially '7', spread to other families as Wanderwörter.

so...wanderworter basically can be invoked as "it jumped the length of a small continent"? because thats what it seems you said, just now, when I mentioned reasons of distance.

or was it picked up by the Nakh language in the days of Akkadian, and never changed since then?

[Talskubilos]

so...wanderworter basically can be invoked as "it jumped the length of a small continent"? because thats what it seems you said, just now, when I mentioned reasons of distance.

Actually, Wanderwörter can travel across an entire continent. For example, IE *porḱ-o- 'piglet' is a Wanderwort of Austronesian origin.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

I would like some evidence for that.

[Ketsuban]

In fact, 'apple' happens to be a Wanderwort found in several families, including IE itself (although somewhat disguised). :)

What families? Why is the loanword hypothesis better than the idea that *h₂ébl̥/*h₂ébōl is an irregular metathesis of *méh₂lom, which has much the same relationship to *méh₂- "ripen, mature" that *webʰl- "beetle, worm" (English weevil) has to *webʰ- "weave"? (Also, are you using Wanderwort to mean "loanword"? You seem to like declaring prehistoric Wanderwörter and filling in the ignoramus-et-ignorabimus blanks with magic to justify them.)

Actually, Wanderwörter can travel across an entire continent. For example, IE *porḱ-o- 'piglet' is a Wanderwort of Austronesian origin. :)

Definitely citation needed, given it looks like a derivation from *perḱ- "dig". (edit to add: I don't need a citation for the idea that Wanderwörter can travel the length of a continent - medieval Latin musa from Trans-New Guinea is as far as I know uncontroversial.)

[Raholeun]

so...wanderworter basically can be invoked as "it jumped the length of a small continent"? because thats what it seems you said, just now, when I mentioned reasons of distance.

Actually, Wanderwörter can travel across an entire continent. For example, IE *porḱ-o- 'piglet' is a Wanderwort of Austronesian origin.

From a PAN root other than *babuy presumably? If so, which one?

[Talskubilos]

In fact, 'apple' happens to be a Wanderwort found in several families, including IE itself (although somewhat disguised).

What families? Why is the loanword hypothesis better than the idea that *h₂ébl̥/*h₂ébōl is an irregular metathesis of *méh₂lom, which has much the same relationship to *méh₂- "ripen, mature" that *webʰl- "beetle, worm" (English weevil) has to *webʰ- "weave"?

IMHO, *ab(ō)l isn't a PIE-native word but a Paleo-European substrate loanword which I'd link to Hittite šam(a)lu-, Uralic *omɜrɜ ~ *omena 'apple' and Basque udare, udari, madari 'pear'. The origin would have been the lexeme found in Nakh-Dagestanian *mhălV- ~ *mhănV- 'warm' and IE *meh₂l-o- 'apple' plus some kind of prefix.

(Also, are you using Wanderwort to mean "loanword"? You seem to like declaring prehistoric Wanderwörter and filling in the ignoramus-et-ignorabimus blanks with magic to justify them.)

Nothing of the kind.

Actually, Wanderwörter can travel across an entire continent. For example, IE *porḱ-o- 'piglet' is a Wanderwort of Austronesian origin.

Definitely citation needed, given it looks like a derivation from *perḱ- "dig". (edit to add: I don't need a citation for the idea that Wanderwörter can travel the length of a continent - medieval Latin musa from Trans-New Guinea is as far as I know uncontroversial.)

The Austronesian word is reconstructed as *beRek 'domesticated pig', but I'm sure this kind of "internal etymologies" are typical of the isolationist framework of most IE scholars (although I could say the same of academic Vascologists, for example).

[Rounin Ryuuji]

A plausible internal etymology will generally be more probable than an external one.

[Talskubilos]

A plausible internal etymology will generally be more probable than an external one.

Why so? Chance resemblances are quite probable among +2000 lexical items.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

I would have to ask why you would expect this not to be the case. That a probable internal etymology is not the case certainly requires a higher standard of proof.

[Talskubilos]

I would have to ask why you would expect this not to be the case. That a probable internal etymology is not the case certainly requires a higher standard of proof.

I'd rather say "possible" than "probable". Among other things, *prk- 'to dig' is a 0-grade lexeme restricted to a few branches and related to agriculture, therefore most likely not a "native" word, i.e. it doesn't belong to the horse-and-wheel pack of the Kurgan people.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

We apparently see the pork-cognate word in Baltic, Slavic, Germanic, Iranian, and Italic, which is pretty broad, in my mind; we also have apparently a fairly broad range (including again Germanic, Iranian, and Italic) attestation of the form probably meaning "dig". If it isn't native, it seems to have been an early borrowing (this being from whatever source the Internet can give me). I don't really see any reason to connect this with a word from very far away when there is this plausible etymon sitting right in front of us.

[Talskubilos]

We apparently see the pork-cognate word in Baltic, Slavic, Germanic, Iranian, and Italic, which is pretty broad, in my mind; we also have apparently a fairly broad range (including again Germanic, Iranian, and Italic) attestation of the form probably meaning "dig". If it isn't native, it seems to have been an early borrowing (this being from whatever source the Internet can give me). I don't really see any reason to connect this with a word from very far away when there is this plausible etymon sitting right in front of us.

IMHO, the probably of a chance resemblance is higher in this case.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

So you're just going to keep saying "But I don't believe this thing staring me in the face" and making emoji?

[Talskubilos]

So you're just going to keep saying "But I don't believe this thing staring me in the face" and making emoji?

A pig is a pig and a digging is a digging.

[Zju]

We apparently see the pork-cognate word in Baltic, Slavic, Germanic, Iranian, and Italic, which is pretty broad, in my mind; we also have apparently a fairly broad range (including again Germanic, Iranian, and Italic) attestation of the form probably meaning "dig". If it isn't native, it seems to have been an early borrowing (this being from whatever source the Internet can give me). I don't really see any reason to connect this with a word from very far away when there is this plausible etymon sitting right in front of us.

I have to agree. Six branches is not few for the IE family, therefore it most likely is a native word.

IMHO, the probably of a chance resemblance is higher in this case.

Not really, it is lower.

So you're just going to keep saying "But I don't believe this thing staring me in the face" and making emoji?

This is what he does when he runs out of arguments.

[keenir]

Actually, Wanderwörter can travel across an entire continent. For example, IE *porḱ-o- 'piglet' is a Wanderwort of Austronesian origin.

Definitely citation needed, given it looks like a derivation from *perḱ- "dig". (edit to add: I don't need a citation for the idea that Wanderwörter can travel the length of a continent - medieval Latin musa from Trans-New Guinea is as far as I know uncontroversial.)

I wouldn't argue or debate musa -- the traders and European end of the trade route (which also gave knowledge of birds of paradise) only used musa to refer to the banana, right? Musa didn't become the Medieval Latin word for "fruit" or "yellow" as far as I know.

[keenir]

A plausible internal etymology will generally be more probable than an external one.

Why so? Chance resemblances are quite probable among +2000 lexical items.

isn't that what everyone else has been telling you?

In fact, 'apple' happens to be a Wanderwort found in several families, including IE itself (although somewhat disguised).

What families? Why is the loanword hypothesis better than the idea that *h₂ébl̥/*h₂ébōl is an irregular metathesis of *méh₂lom, which has much the same relationship to *méh₂- "ripen, mature" that *webʰl- "beetle, worm" (English weevil) has to *webʰ- "weave"?

IMHO, *ab(ō)l isn't a PIE-native word but a Paleo-European substrate loanword which I'd link to Hittite šam(a)lu-, Uralic *omɜrɜ ~ *omena 'apple' and Basque udare, udari, madari 'pear'. The origin would have been the lexeme found in Nakh-Dagestanian *mhălV- ~ *mhănV- 'warm' and IE *meh₂l-o- 'apple' plus some kind of prefix.

is this a bad time to mention Hittite being an IE language?

Actually, Wanderwörter can travel across an entire continent. For example, IE *porḱ-o- 'piglet' is a Wanderwort of Austronesian origin.

Definitely citation needed, given it looks like a derivation from *perḱ- "dig". (edit to add: I don't need a citation for the idea that Wanderwörter can travel the length of a continent - medieval Latin musa from Trans-New Guinea is as far as I know uncontroversial.)

The Austronesian word is reconstructed as *beRek 'domesticated pig', but I'm sure this kind of "internal etymologies" are typical of the isolationist framework of most IE scholars (although I could say the same of academic Vascologists, for example).

well if you hate IE scholars so much, why are you going through their isolationist papers for Austronesian reconstructions?