The oddities of Basque

[Talskubilos]

As with modern IE languages, PIE had a very productive derivational morphology, and its traces are all over its modern-day descendants.

So you're basically saying PIE behaves like a conlang, are you?

[bradrn]

As with modern IE languages, PIE had a very productive derivational morphology, and its traces are all over its modern-day descendants.

So you're basically saying PIE behaves like a conlang, are you?

No, why would I say that? If anything, I’m saying that conlangs can become more naturalistic by having a productive derivational morphology.

[MacAnDàil]

No, conlangs often imitate PIE, but not the other way round.

[Talskubilos]

And you couldn't explain that? Also, naming animals for a trait they have is not particularly uncommon — both Sinitic and Japonic appear to have onomatopoeic words for "cat", for example; we also have animal names like rusty spotted cat, ant-eater, and so on in English — so an explanation of why you find it ridiculous would also be in order, as is an apology.

It happens that "speckled" isn't a salient characteristic of piglets, but rather of boar cubs.

[Talskubilos]

No, why would I say that? If anything, I’m saying that conlangs can become more naturalistic by having a productive derivational morphology.

The thing is the +2000 lexical items reconstructed for PIE haven't got the same Ablaut nor derivative patterns, IMHO because they belong to different linguistic strata.

[bradrn]

Aww, so cute! But I’m not sure I’d call them ‘speckled’. ‘Lined’, perhaps.

No, why would I say that? If anything, I’m saying that conlangs can become more naturalistic by having a productive derivational morphology.

The thing is the +2000 lexical items reconstructed for PIE haven't got the same Ablaut nor derivative patterns, IMHO because they belong to different linguistic strata.

Examples, please?

[Rounin Ryuuji]

Cute picture.

Would those be multicoloured boar cubs?

[Talskubilos]

Would those be multicoloured boar cubs?

Yes, that's right.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

So "multicoloured" shifting to "young pig" is an entirely plausible etymology.

[Zju]

As with modern IE languages, PIE had a very productive derivational morphology, and its traces are all over its modern-day descendants.

So you're basically saying PIE behaves like a conlang, are you?

If anything, your ad hoc protoforms of all kinds of alleged wanderwörter are constructed.

[Talskubilos]

So "multicoloured" shifting to "young pig" is an entirely plausible etymology.

It could be so if "Kurgan" (or any body else who spoke "PIE") people didn't domesticate the animal and imported piglets from elsewhere without the corresponding loanword.

[Talskubilos]

If anything, your ad hoc protoforms of all kinds of alleged wanderwörter are constructed.

In long-range comparisons, it's far easier to pick Wandewörter rather than true inherited lexicon (excluding chance resemblances, of course).

[keenir]

Yes, indeed they are extremely different “warm”↔“apple” makes very little sense, whereas “dig”↔“pig” is perfectly plausible.

As I said before, there's no such verb 'to dig'.

as you said before, you don't believe the findings of IE-ists, nor their arcane tomes, nor their isolationist findings.

So, what are you basing your 'there's no such verb 'to dig'' upon? *i am curious*

[Zju]

If anything, your ad hoc protoforms of all kinds of alleged wanderwörter are constructed.

In long-range comparisons, it's far easier to pick Wandewörter rather than true inherited lexicon (excluding chance resemblances, of course).

^{[citation needed]}

It's easy to pick what on first glance look like Wandewörter, but what are likely chance resemblances.

[keenir]

wait, why do we need a missing link, when you said the Nakh language provides a better origin than PIE does? if you're using Nakh as a source for a missing link, then where is the language that Nakh gets it from?(from PIE to Nakh to IE?)

Perhaps I didn't explain myself well enough. On the one hand, we've got an "apple" Wanderwort in several languages, and on the other IE *meh₂l-o- 'apple'. The Nakh-Daghestanian word would be the "missing link" between both.

just so I'm clear (and thank you for explaining further to avoid confusion), earlier you said Nakh was the origin, and now you're saying its an intermediate; did you change your mind?

[keenir]

As with modern IE languages, PIE had a very productive derivational morphology, and its traces are all over its modern-day descendants.

So you're basically saying PIE behaves like a conlang, are you?

oh so thats what happened to that conlang I left printouts of, those thousands of years ago...

(yeah, I've since regressed massively in my conlanging ability since then)

[keenir]

And you couldn't explain that? Also, naming animals for a trait they have is not particularly uncommon — both Sinitic and Japonic appear to have onomatopoeic words for "cat", for example; we also have animal names like rusty spotted cat, ant-eater, and so on in English — so an explanation of why you find it ridiculous would also be in order, as is an apology.

It happens that "speckled" isn't a salient characteristic of piglets, but rather of boar cubs.

where do you think pigs came from? also, many pig breeds - extant and extinct - have been mottled

[Rounin Ryuuji]

So "multicoloured" shifting to "young pig" is an entirely plausible etymology.

It could be so if "Kurgan" (or any body else who spoke "PIE") people didn't domesticate the animal and imported piglets from elsewhere without the corresponding loanword.

I don't see why that's necessary. Say you have a word for "cat" because your people have seen cats, but your people haven't domesticated cats. Domestic cats reach your people, yet you already have a word for "cat"; is there any reason you would necessarily borrow a word for "domestic cat"? Maybe, but maybe not.

[Pabappa]

PIE is typically described as being heavily based on verbal roots, though, even for truly elementary concepts like fire, water, frogs, weather, and people. As Ive said further upthread, I think people go a little too far in trying to break down even these very fundamental concepts into preexisting compounds, such as saying that "night" is derived from the word for "naked" .... but with a less than convincing argument for the semantic shift. Yet, the structure of these proposed etymologies is not in doubt ..... you would have to argue against the whole of PIE scholarship if you think that words for basic concepts were not derived through vowel ablaut from preexisting verb roots.

[Skookum]

As with modern IE languages, PIE had a very productive derivational morphology, and its traces are all over its modern-day descendants.

So you're basically saying PIE behaves like a conlang, are you?

Really confused by what you mean by this, since derivation is a process in all natural languages as far as I know.

PIE is typically described as being heavily based on verbal roots, though, even for truly elementary concepts like fire, water, frogs, weather, and people. As Ive said further upthread, I think people go a little too far in trying to break down even these very fundamental concepts into preexisting compounds, such as saying that "night" is derived from the word for "naked" .... but with a less than convincing argument for the semantic shift. Yet, the structure of these proposed etymologies is not in doubt ..... you would have to argue against the whole of PIE scholarship if you think that words for basic concepts were not derived through vowel ablaut from preexisting verb roots.

Salish languages work in a similar way. For example, the Squamish word for "water", staqʷ, is derived from taqʷ "to drink" plus the nominalizing prefix s-. So its definitely a feature that occurs in attested languages and not just reconstructed ones like PIE.