Zompist Bboard Again

bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 7:44 amBut I’m starting to believe that the disagreement between us is mostly one of terminology. When I refer to ‘PIE’, I simply mean the common ancestor of all the IE languages. This language may well be entirely different to that reconstructed by various researchers; I accept that this may be the case, though I think it unlikely. I consider the statement ‘PIE does not exist’ to be a trivial falsity, since I define PIE only as the most recent common ancestor of the IE languages, and we all agree that such an ancestor exists.

It might exist, but its lexicon would only be only a subset of the +2000 items commonly reconstructed for PIE.

Talskubilos wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 7:55 am

bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 7:44 amBut I’m starting to believe that the disagreement between us is mostly one of terminology. When I refer to ‘PIE’, I simply mean the common ancestor of all the IE languages. This language may well be entirely different to that reconstructed by various researchers; I accept that this may be the case, though I think it unlikely. I consider the statement ‘PIE does not exist’ to be a trivial falsity, since I define PIE only as the most recent common ancestor of the IE languages, and we all agree that such an ancestor exists.

I might exist, but its lexicon would only be only a subset of the +2000 items commonly reconstructed for PIE.

Sure, but we both agree at least that the language existed, even if we disagree on how well it’s been reconstructed. You do accept that PIE existed; you just think that haven’t yet reconstructed it correctly, and that most currently-accepted ‘words from PIE’ in fact were loaned from other languages.

(By the way, you still haven’t given any examples of PIE basic vocabulary which you think are actually loanwords.)

bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 8:02 amSure, but we both agree at least that the language existed, even if we disagree on how well it’s been reconstructed. You do accept that PIE existed; you just think that haven’t yet reconstructed it correctly, and that most currently-accepted ‘words from PIE’ in fact were loaned from other languages.

Not exactly. My view is that "PIE" isn't a monolythic entity but a multilayered one. And, yes, some "PIE" items are loanwords or Wanderwörter.

bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 8:02 am(By the way, you still haven’t given any examples of PIE basic vocabulary which you think are actually loanwords.)

Quoting from memory, these would include some numerals, namely '2' and '7', kinship terms such as 'daughter' or 'sister' (matrilineal system?) and cultural innovations such as 'horse' and 'wheel'.

Talskubilos wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 8:17 am

bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 8:02 amSure, but we both agree at least that the language existed, even if we disagree on how well it’s been reconstructed. You do accept that PIE existed; you just think that haven’t yet reconstructed it correctly, and that most currently-accepted ‘words from PIE’ in fact were loaned from other languages.

Not exactly. My view is that "PIE" isn't a monolythic entity but a multilayered one. And, yes, some "PIE" items are loanwords or Wanderwörter.

What does that even mean? I’m not familiar with use of the term ‘multilayered’ from mainstream historical linguistics, so you’ll have to define it for us.

bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 8:02 am(By the way, you still haven’t given any examples of PIE basic vocabulary which you think are actually loanwords.)

These include some numerals, namely '2' and '7', kinship terms such as 'daughter' or 'sister' (matrilineal system') and cultural innovations such as 'horse' and 'wheel'.

You must be joking. Taking just one of your examples, how are twa, duo, dúō, dou, dvì, dvà~dvé, dy, wu (from resp. OE, Latin, Greek, Old Welsh, Lithuanian, Sanskrit, Albanian, Tocharian A) not obviously cognate‽

bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 8:25 amWhat does that even mean? I’m not familiar with use of the term ‘multilayered’ from mainstream historical linguistics, so you’ll have to define it for us.

AFAIK, this term was first introduced by the Bulgarian linguist Vladimir Georgiev to describe Lycian, an Anatolian language.

bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 8:02 amYou must be joking. Taking just one of your examples, how are twa, duo, dúō, dou, dvì, dvà~dvé, dy, wu (from resp. OE, Latin, Greek, Old Welsh, Lithuanian, Sanskrit, Albanian, Tocharian A) not obviously cognate‽

Of course, they're cognate, but the numeral '2' was ultimately borrowed from NW Caucasian, and '5' from NE Caucasian 'fist'.

Talskubilos wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 8:35 am

bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 8:25 amWhat does that even mean? I’m not familiar with use of the term ‘multilayered’ from mainstream historical linguistics, so you’ll have to define it for us.

AFAIK, this term was first introduced by the Bulgarian linguist Vladimir Georgiev to describe Lycian, an Anatolian language.

Possibly, but this helps me not one bit in understanding what you’re talking about. I still have no clue whatsoever what you (or Georgiev) means by ‘multilayered’.

bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 8:02 amYou must be joking. Taking just one of your examples, how are twa, duo, dúō, dou, dvì, dvà~dvé, dy, wu (from resp. OE, Latin, Greek, Old Welsh, Lithuanian, Sanskrit, Albanian, Tocharian A) not obviously cognate‽

Of course, they're cognate, but the numeral '2' was ultimately borrowed from NW Caucasian, and '5' from NE Caucasian 'fist'.

Ah, OK. In that case, are you saying that ‘2’ was borrowed from NW Caucasian into PIE, and then was inherited from PIE into all its descendants? In that case I’d still count ‘2’ as part of the IE lexicon, just as e.g. ‘tea’ is part of the English lexicon but is ultimately a loan. (An extreme Wanderwort, in fact.)

bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 9:24 amPossibly, but this helps me not one bit in understanding what you’re talking about. I still have no clue whatsoever what you (or Georgiev) means by ‘multilayered’.

According to Georgiev, Lycian was made up from two different components: one would be Lycian proper, the descendant of West Luwian, and the second would be Termilian, a language closely related to Pelasgian. He also was the first proponent of the so-called Mycenean Koiné, which regarded Mycenean as a mixed dialect, coming from "at least two or three Greek dialects, most likely from the proto-Arcado-Cypriot (Aeolic) and the proto-Ionic dialects". The most salient isogloss he identified was the output of the sylabic resonants, which sometimes appear as /a/ (a(n), am, ar, al) and sometimes as /o/ (o(n), om, or, ol).

In my own use of the term, the reconstructed "PIE" is made up from several layers, including the one from which these basic lexicon comes from.

bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 8:02 amAh, OK. In that case, are you saying that ‘2’ was borrowed from NW Caucasian into PIE, and then was inherited from PIE into all its descendants?

Not exactly, but something of the kind.

Talskubilos wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 9:35 am

bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 9:24 amPossibly, but this helps me not one bit in understanding what you’re talking about. I still have no clue whatsoever what you (or Georgiev) means by ‘multilayered’.

According to Georgiev, Lycian was made up from two different components: one would be Lycian proper, the descendant of West Luwian, and the second would be Termilian, a language closely related to Pelasgian. He also was the first proponent of the so-called Mycenean Koiné, which regarded Mycenean as a mixed dialect, coming from "at least two or three Greek dialects, most likely from the proto-Arcado-Cypriot (Aeolic) and the proto-Ionic dialects". The most salient isogloss he identified was the output of the sylabic resonants, which sometimes appear as /a/ (a(n), am, ar, al) and sometimes as /o/ (o(n), om, or, ol).

In my own use of the term, the reconstructed "PIE" is made up from several layers, including the one from which these basic lexicon comes from.

OK, this makes sense. I’d personally call all the layers together ‘PIE’, and give the basic lexicon a name like ‘PIE proper’ or ‘native PIE’ or something.

bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 8:02 amAh, OK. In that case, are you saying that ‘2’ was borrowed from NW Caucasian into PIE, and then was inherited from PIE into all its descendants?

Not exactly, but something of the kind.

So how would you phrase it then?

bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 9:41 amOK, this makes sense. I’d personally call all the layers together ‘PIE’, and give the basic lexicon a name like ‘PIE proper’ or ‘native PIE’ or something.

I'd temptatively call this layer "Kurganic" after Gimbutas-Mallory's theory of IE origins in the Pontic Steppes.

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.

/me wants to smack his forehead against his desk so badly after reading this (well, before I started skimming rather than reading)...

Travis B. wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 10:37 am/me wants to smack his forehead against his desk so badly after reading this (well, before I started skimming rather than reading)...

I've just rewritten the text to make it more understandable.

On the other hand, other IE numerals, namely '10, '20', ... '100', have got the fossilized lexeme *ḱmt- 'hand', which would related to Germanic *xandu- as well as to Semitic '5'.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 10:37 am /me wants to smack his forehead against his desk so badly after reading this (well, before I started skimming rather than reading)...

Are you sure? For the first time I can remember, Talskubilos is actually explaining his ideas clearly. I mean, I still don’t agree with them, but at least I finally understand what he’s saying now, and it’s not actually too unreasonable.

bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 10:47 amFor the first time I can remember, Talskubilos is actually explaining his ideas clearly. I mean, I still don’t agree with them, but at least I finally understand what he’s saying now, and it’s not actually too unreasonable.

I'm beginning to wonder if from now on we'll need to place any new topic regarding Basque into immediate quarantine

alice wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 11:35 am I'm beginning to wonder if from now on we'll need to place any new topic regarding Basque into immediate quarantine

Just remember - all other languages were created from it by monks.

Talskubilos wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 1:35 am

bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 1:15 am

bradrn wrote: ↑Mon Aug 30, 2021 7:30 pm Quick question for Talskubilos: The standard argument of, well, all historical linguists is that if two languages have extensive, regular and consistent sound changes throughout their whole lexicon, they must be equivalent [EDIT: sorry, meant ‘related’]. Are you seriously saying that this argument is incorrect?

I take it you are not going to answer my question then?

Well, historical linguistics isn't exactly like maths, you know.

in math, the argument is whether math is discovered or invented.

Talskubilos wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 3:23 am

bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 2:49 amThe range of semantic correspondences is also restricted — a Greenbergian comparison of ‘udder’ to ‘suck’ to ‘throat’ (say) would never be acceptable.

Unfortunately, semantic changes happen all of the time, so this approach is likely to discard true correspondences and include Wanderwörter.

wait....you're arguing that languages can't have relatives...because sound changes & meaning changes happen?

Talskubilos wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 7:55 am

bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 7:44 amBut I’m starting to believe that the disagreement between us is mostly one of terminology. When I refer to ‘PIE’, I simply mean the common ancestor of all the IE languages. This language may well be entirely different to that reconstructed by various researchers; I accept that this may be the case, though I think it unlikely. I consider the statement ‘PIE does not exist’ to be a trivial falsity, since I define PIE only as the most recent common ancestor of the IE languages, and we all agree that such an ancestor exists.

It might exist, but its lexicon would only be only a subset of the +2000 items commonly reconstructed for PIE.

um, why would it be a subset?

is this one of those times where "primitive peoples don't need as many words" as some critics say?

Talskubilos wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 8:35 am

bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 8:25 amWhat does that even mean? I’m not familiar with use of the term ‘multilayered’ from mainstream historical linguistics, so you’ll have to define it for us.

AFAIK, this term was first introduced by the Bulgarian linguist Vladimir Georgiev to describe Lycian, an Anatolian language.

bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 8:02 amYou must be joking. Taking just one of your examples, how are twa, duo, dúō, dou, dvì, dvà~dvé, dy, wu (from resp. OE, Latin, Greek, Old Welsh, Lithuanian, Sanskrit, Albanian, Tocharian A) not obviously cognate‽

Of course, they're cognate, but the numeral '2' was ultimately borrowed from NW Caucasian, and '5' from NE Caucasian 'fist'.

um, its an interesting idea...but given that NWC and NEC weren't written down for longer than PIE&IE languages, how can you tell that they are the loan origin sites?

keenir wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 1:26 pm

Talskubilos wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 8:35 am Of course, they're cognate, but the numeral '2' was ultimately borrowed from NW Caucasian, and '5' from NE Caucasian 'fist'.

um, its an interesting idea...but given that NWC and NEC weren't written down for longer than PIE&IE languages, how can you tell that they are the loan origin sites?

This is what's sticking out to me as suspect. So we dump all the cruft off of */kwetwores/ and have */kwetw~kwetu/ as a probable Proto-Proto-Indo-European word meaning something to do with lumping things together into pairs, or fours. This part seems sensible. However, note that the */kwet(u)-/ element being borrowed as */kat/ in a language with a more restrictive phoneme inventory is plausible, but I would expect the element */kat/ to be borrowed into Proto-Indo-European as something like */kh₂et/, or */kat/ (I believe an */a/ phoneme is reconstructed for some loanwords and onomatopoeia; *[a] was certainly an allophone of */e/ when it was in contact with */h₂/, I believe) with no intrusive labialisation, which is the part of that explanation I find most difficult to swallow.