Zompist Bboard Again

Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Mon Aug 23, 2021 3:25 pm As far as regional variants go, we also have some forms for "flower" which are clearly not cognate — note blossom, probably partly cognate to flos, flor-, but not to the Slavic forms, like Polish kviat, Russian tsvietok, which seem to be connected to white.

Polish kwiat, Czech květ and even Yiddish קווייט all have the singular meaning of "flower". The link with the original PIE meaning "white" is more transparent when looking at Russian цвет "colour" plus the nominalizing suffix -ок.

Raholeun wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 3:11 amPolish kwiat, Czech květ and even Yiddish קווייט all have the singular meaning of "flower". The link with the original PIE meaning "white" is more transparent when looking at Russian цвет "colour" plus the nominalizing suffix -ок.

IMHO, this would be also the origin of Latin vitrum 'glass; woad (Isatis tinctoria)'.

Talskubilos wrote: ↑Mon Aug 23, 2021 4:52 pm

Zju wrote: ↑Mon Aug 23, 2021 4:50 pmSo the status quo remains that there are no reasonable arguments in favour of some purported **ib- existing. I'm glad that we implicitly came to terms regarding something.

Sorry, but it's rather on the contrary.

I don't think so.

Talskubilos wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 12:46 am

Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Mon Aug 23, 2021 5:41 pmI would expect Proto-Indo-European to have multiple horse-related words, given that the more cultural bearing a thing has, the more words a language tends to have relating to it. Some might be borrowed (English inherits blossom, which precises to mean flowers on certain agriculturally-significant trees, half-inherits bloom, and borrows flower from a superstratum, alongside technical words like inflorescence, of similar but not identical meaning) and others native. Some of those might or might not be borrowings, but I expect the etymons of horse and equus were probably Indo-European, and I'm not seeing a good reason to assume they weren't.

I forgot to mention Basque zaldi 'horse' derives from an IE protoform *g^wold- 'foal, young of an ass', found in Germanic *kult-a- > English colt and Sanskrit gardabhá- 'ass'. But the fact there're several reconstructible 'horse' words in IE doesn't imply they coexisted in a hypothetical PIE language.

It doesn't necessarily, but then again languages can have more than one word for horse or close meanings of it. English itself has 'horse', 'mare', 'colt', 'foal' and probably some others I don't know.

Talskubilos wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 3:45 am

Raholeun wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 3:11 amPolish kwiat, Czech květ and even Yiddish קווייט all have the singular meaning of "flower". The link with the original PIE meaning "white" is more transparent when looking at Russian цвет "colour" plus the nominalizing suffix -ок.

IMHO, this would be also the origin of Latin vitrum 'glass; woad (Isatis tinctoria)'.

Not really: Proto-Italic *wedrom “glass” < PIE *wed-ro- “water-like” is a better explanation.

WeepingElf wrote: ↑Mon Aug 23, 2021 3:50 pm Right. The 'horse'-word (just as the 'wheel'-word, BTW) has a good etymology within PIE

And the same 'wheel' word also has good etymologies within Sumerian and Semitic. Are there good analogies to h1ok̂u-:h1ek̂wos, or is it just a plausible folk-etymoloɡy that helped the word's adoptation?

Zju wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 12:40 pm

Talskubilos wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 12:46 amI forgot to mention Basque zaldi 'horse' derives from an IE protoform *g^wold- 'foal, young of an ass', found in Germanic *kult-a- > English colt and Sanskrit gardabhá- 'ass'. But the fact there're several reconstructible 'horse' words in IE doesn't imply they coexisted in a hypothetical PIE language.

It doesn't necessarily, but then again languages can have more than one word for horse or close meanings of it. English itself has 'horse', 'mare', 'colt', 'foal' and probably some others I don't know.

But PIE isn't exactly a language in the same way than e.g. English, you know.

Zju wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 12:40 pm

Talskubilos wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 3:45 amIMHO, this would be also the origin of Latin vitrum 'glass; woad (Isatis tinctoria)'.

Not really: Proto-Italic *wedrom “glass” < PIE *wed-ro- “water-like” is a better explanation.

What about Germanic *waizda- and Greek isatis 'goad' < *wis-ti- < *wit-ti-? It looks we're dealing with a Wanderwort here.

Talskubilos wrote: ↑Wed Aug 25, 2021 1:33 am What about Germanic *waizda- and Greek isatis 'goad' < *wis-ti- < *wit-ti-? It looks we're dealing with a Wanderwort here. :)

I see how it is. The fact that the Latin term has a plausible Indo-European etymology isn't enough - you hold up Germanic (which at least one source I can find - Boutkan's Old Frisian Etymological Dictionary - thinks is of substratum origin) and Greek (I don't have a copy of Beekes' etymological dictionary, and Wiktionary just says "unknown") terms, shout "Wanderwort", and assert the nonexistence of an Indo-European root at all as a result. I can see how doing that enough times leads you to the conclusion that PIE is some sort of scientific phantom.

I say: citation needed on the hypothetical forms you just cited for ἰσάτις.

https://www.academia.edu/7134408/A_Firs ... n_Language

i found this .... written in 2013 but just appeared on my feed today. from the title, it seems this researcher goes further than Blevins and others .... he claims not just that Basque is related to IE at some distant node in the past, but that it is actually IE itself.

Pabappa wrote: ↑Wed Aug 25, 2021 8:53 am https://www.academia.edu/7134408/A_Firs ... n_Language

i found this .... written in 2013 but just appeared on my feed today. from the title, it seems this researcher goes further than Blevins and others .... he claims not just that Basque is related to IE at some distant node in the past, but that it is actually IE itself.

Ah yes, Forni. Just a couple of weeks ago I discovered his article Evidence for Basque as an Indo-European Language, which is notable for being much better than most other crackpot proposals, insofar as it actually has regular sound changes. The full journal issue also looks fascinating, in that it contains both Forni’s article, several researchers’ rebuttals, then his reply. Unfortunately they have been very careful to paywall the whole thing, so I can’t assess it properly.

Ketsuban wrote: ↑Wed Aug 25, 2021 8:08 amI see how it is. The fact that the Latin term has a plausible Indo-European etymology isn't enough

I'd rather say an ad hoc one.

Ketsuban wrote: ↑Wed Aug 25, 2021 8:08 am- you hold up Germanic (which at least one source I can find - Boutkan's Old Frisian Etymological Dictionary - thinks is of substratum origin) and Greek (I don't have a copy of Beekes' etymological dictionary, and Wiktionary just says "unknown") terms, shout "Wanderwort", and assert the nonexistence of an Indo-European root at all as a result.

Cultural inventions often lead to Wanderwörter. Why should IE language be immune to them?

Talskubilos wrote: ↑Wed Aug 25, 2021 9:55 am

Ketsuban wrote: ↑Wed Aug 25, 2021 8:08 am- you hold up Germanic (which at least one source I can find - Boutkan's Old Frisian Etymological Dictionary - thinks is of substratum origin) and Greek (I don't have a copy of Beekes' etymological dictionary, and Wiktionary just says "unknown") terms, shout "Wanderwort", and assert the nonexistence of an Indo-European root at all as a result.

Cultural inventions often lead to Wanderwörter. Why should IE language be immune to them?

This is one of the more audacious fallacies of the excluded middle I think I've ever seen.

"I don't think this particular etymon is an example is a Wanderwort."
"Why are you saying there are no Wanderwörter in PIE?"

Talskubilos wrote: ↑Wed Aug 25, 2021 9:55 am

Ketsuban wrote: ↑Wed Aug 25, 2021 8:08 am- you hold up Germanic (which at least one source I can find - Boutkan's Old Frisian Etymological Dictionary - thinks is of substratum origin) and Greek (I don't have a copy of Beekes' etymological dictionary, and Wiktionary just says "unknown") terms, shout "Wanderwort", and assert the nonexistence of an Indo-European root at all as a result.

Cultural inventions often lead to Wanderwörter. Why should IE language be immune to them?

No-one is saying it is. (Indeed I’m sure I remember reading about consensus IE Wanderwörter a while ago.) The problem is with leaping to that conclusion is that you first need to make sure there is no other more plausible explanation. Usually there is — Wanderwörter aren’t excessively rare, but they aren’t too common either. I’d be surprise to find a single language with more than 10 or so.

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Wed Aug 25, 2021 10:03 am

Talskubilos wrote: ↑Wed Aug 25, 2021 9:55 am

Ketsuban wrote: ↑Wed Aug 25, 2021 8:08 am- you hold up Germanic (which at least one source I can find - Boutkan's Old Frisian Etymological Dictionary - thinks is of substratum origin) and Greek (I don't have a copy of Beekes' etymological dictionary, and Wiktionary just says "unknown") terms, shout "Wanderwort", and assert the nonexistence of an Indo-European root at all as a result.

Cultural inventions often lead to Wanderwörter. Why should IE language be immune to them?

This is one of the more audacious fallacies of the excluded middle I think I've ever seen.

"I don't think this particular etymon is an example is a Wanderwort."
"Why are you saying there are no Wanderwörter in PIE?"

Au contraire, it’s a strawman.

Talskubilos wrote: ↑Wed Aug 25, 2021 1:33 am

Zju wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 12:40 pm

Talskubilos wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 12:46 amI forgot to mention Basque zaldi 'horse' derives from an IE protoform *g^wold- 'foal, young of an ass', found in Germanic *kult-a- > English colt and Sanskrit gardabhá- 'ass'. But the fact there're several reconstructible 'horse' words in IE doesn't imply they coexisted in a hypothetical PIE language.

It doesn't necessarily, but then again languages can have more than one word for horse or close meanings of it. English itself has 'horse', 'mare', 'colt', 'foal' and probably some others I don't know.

But PIE isn't exactly a language in the same way than e.g. English, you know.

No, I don't. For all we know, PIE is a language just like any else, and our reconstruction of it mixes its various dialects at various periods.

Talskubilos wrote: ↑Wed Aug 25, 2021 1:33 am

Zju wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 12:40 pm

Talskubilos wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 3:45 amIMHO, this would be also the origin of Latin vitrum 'glass; woad (Isatis tinctoria)'.

Not really: Proto-Italic *wedrom “glass” < PIE *wed-ro- “water-like” is a better explanation.

What about Germanic *waizda- and Greek isatis 'goad' < *wis-ti- < *wit-ti-? It looks we're dealing with a Wanderwort here.

Proof? It doesn't look so.

Talskubilos wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 12:46 am But the fact there're several reconstructible 'horse' words in IE doesn't imply they coexisted in a hypothetical PIE language.

But you're insisting that they exist in some other equally ancient (proto)language, because you reconstructed them out of something or other...how is that different?

Talskubilos wrote: ↑Wed Aug 25, 2021 1:33 amBut PIE isn't exactly a language in the same way than e.g. English, you know.

As I understand it, and I am fully prepared to be proven wrong, this is the difference between PIE and ENGLISH:

PIE is a reconstructed language.

English is an extant language.

and before you ask, Hebrew is a revived language.

bradrn wrote: ↑Wed Aug 25, 2021 9:00 amAh yes, Forni. Just a couple of weeks ago I discovered his article Evidence for Basque as an Indo-European Language, which is notable for being much better than most other crackpot proposals, insofar as it actually has regular sound changes. The full journal issue also looks fascinating, in that it contains both Forni’s article, several researchers’ rebuttals, then his reply. Unfortunately they have been very careful to paywall the whole thing, so I can’t assess it properly.

Although he identified a few genuine loanwords, most of Forni's proposed etymologies are simply wrong, so overall his work isn't better than, say, Bengtson's Vasco-Caucasian.

keenir wrote: ↑Wed Aug 25, 2021 9:26 pm

Talskubilos wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 12:46 am But the fact there're several reconstructible 'horse' words in IE doesn't imply they coexisted in a hypothetical PIE language.

But you're insisting that they exist in some other equally ancient (proto)language, because you reconstructed them out of something or other...how is that different?

Simply. There's no way the +2000 lexical items reconstructed for "PIE" actually came at once from a single protolanguage.

Talskubilos wrote: ↑Fri Aug 27, 2021 6:04 am

keenir wrote: ↑Wed Aug 25, 2021 9:26 pm

Talskubilos wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 12:46 am But the fact there're several reconstructible 'horse' words in IE doesn't imply they coexisted in a hypothetical PIE language.

But you're insisting that they exist in some other equally ancient (proto)language, because you reconstructed them out of something or other...how is that different?

Simply. There's no way the +2000 lexical items reconstructed for "PIE" actually came at once from a single protolanguage.

Sure, no-one is claiming that every single reconstructed word was really PIE. On the other hand, that doesn’t suddenly make PIE disappear in a puff of smoke. There did exist a single language which was the last common ancestor of Hittite, Hindi, French and English, even if we’ve incorrectly reconstructed part of its lexicon.

(And, if you’re inclined to quarrel with me on this point, we do know such a language existed because we can find regular and systematic phonological correspondences between each of these subgroups: Grimm’s law, satemisation and so on. Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, there are significant morphological similarities between all these languages. The only explanation for such widespread correspondences is a single common ancestor.)

Talskubilos wrote: ↑Fri Aug 27, 2021 6:04 am Simply. There's no way the +2000 lexical items reconstructed for "PIE" actually came at once from a single protolanguage.

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.

Talskubilos wrote: ↑Fri Aug 27, 2021 6:04 am Simply. There's no way the +2000 lexical items reconstructed for "PIE" actually came at once from a single protolanguage.

How many should there be?

I think I should like an explanation, too. Every language I've ever studied seems to have more than two thousand words of native vocabulary.

Waiting for the deflection... waiting... it's coming... get ready, everyone!...