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.
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.Talskubilos wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2020 3:00 pmI'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'-.Ares Land wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2020 1:18 pmSeriously, 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.
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.
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'.
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.Talskubilos wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2020 7:35 am My idea is the reconstructed PIE (understood as a set of lexical and morphological items) isn't a monolithic entity (...)
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.Ares Land wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2020 9:53 am1) 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?
Sorry, but I'm not a conlanger. I don't invent words nor languages such as Proto-whatever.
I'm afraid "insiders" think of comparative linguistics as a hard science when actually it's NOT. See below (*)
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.Ares Land wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2020 9:53 amI 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.
Yes, this is precisely what comparative linguists are doing all the time. (*)
Perhaps I've got a better tuner than you think.
"I've totally got lots of evidence, but I can't show it to you at the time".Talskubilos wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2020 9:15 pm 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.
Either you're using scientific methods, or you just make stuff up. Obviously you've chosen the latter.I'm afraid "insiders" think of comparative linguistics as a hard science when actually it's NOT. See below (*)
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.'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.
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.Perhaps I've got a better tuner than you think.
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 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2020 9:15 pm 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.
Yes, I'm sure, but I've got no interest in conlangs apart from proto-languages (which are themselves a kind of conlangs).WeepingElf wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 4:32 amI 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 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2020 9:15 pm 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.
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.Talskubilos wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2020 9:15 pmYes, this is precisely what comparative linguists are doing all the time. (*)
Perhaps I've got a better tuner than you think.
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.
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.Talskubilos wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 5:00 amYes, I'm sure, but I've got no interest in conlangs apart from proto-languages (which are themselves a kind of conlangs).WeepingElf wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 4:32 amI 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 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2020 9:15 pm 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.
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 coveredRichard W wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 10:59 amPokorny'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.
.)Of course, these words are likely substrate borrowings, even in the case of "satem" loanwords in Western Europe.WeepingElf wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 2:40 pmYes. 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).
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.WeepingElf wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 2:31 pm 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.
When I think of dorsal affricates I think of [kx].Richard W wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 6:49 pmFor 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.WeepingElf wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 2:31 pm 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.