Paleo-European languages

[Richard W]

I don't think so, and in fact IE '5' appears to be a loanword from East Caucasian *fimkˀwV (NCED 1008).

What's that word supposed to mean? I couldn't find it in the Starling database. I could find Proto-Nakh *pχi(ʔ) for 'five', but you seem to have invented an extra syllable. The database seems not to do Proto-NEC. There's a Proto-'North Caucasian' f_ɦä̆.

[WeepingElf]

Probably not 7, but apparently 6-fingered persons do exist, as shown by the Spanish name Seisdedos '6 fingers'.

Yes, polydactyly is a thing.

But as for Germanic *xanduz, I consider a loan of such a basic body part term not very likely (though not impossible). It seems to be from a dialectal IE formation *ḱomtus, from the same root as *deḱmt '10'. (The d in the Germanic form is from Verner's Law.) However, the lack of cognates in other IE branches makes this etymology somewhat suspicious.

[Richard W]

But as for Germanic *xandus, I consider a loan of such a basic body part term not very likely (though not impossible).

Which is why I favour derivation from the number, though it does seem to have rather a ghost lineage. Incidentally, I think there could have been a stage when different number words were used for different objects.

[Talskubilos]

I don't think so, and in fact IE '5' appears to be a loanword from East Caucasian *fimkˀwV (NCED 1008).

What's that word supposed to mean? I couldn't find it in the Starling database. I could find Proto-Nakh *pχi(ʔ) for 'five', but you seem to have invented an extra syllable. The database seems not to do Proto-NEC. There's a Proto-'North Caucasian' f_ɦä̆.

Sorry, I forgot to mention the Caucasian meaning is 'fist'.

[Talskubilos]

But as for Germanic *xanduz, I consider a loan of such a basic body part term not very likely (though not impossible).

I'm afraid the quantity of non-inherited lexicon in IE languages has been largely underestimated. For example, Latin manus 'hand' has no plausible IE etymology nor obvious correspondences in other branches, except possibly in Germanic.

[Travis B.]

But as for Germanic *xanduz, I consider a loan of such a basic body part term not very likely (though not impossible).

I'm afraid the quantity of non-inherited lexicon in IE languages has been largely underestimated. For example, Latin manus 'hand' has no plausible IE etymology nor obvious correspondences in other branches, except possibly in Germanic.

Again, where's the extraordinary evidence? We've said this again and again, right?

[Talskubilos]

Again, where's the extraordinary evidence? We've said this again and again, right?

[Richard W]

But as for Germanic *xanduz, I consider a loan of such a basic body part term not very likely (though not impossible).

I'm afraid the quantity of non-inherited lexicon in IE languages has been largely underestimated. For example, Latin manus 'hand' has no plausible IE etymology nor obvious correspondences in other branches, except possibly in Germanic.

It's the direct borrowing of a synonym from another language that feels unlikely, though I suppose Latin bracchium 'arm' from Greek is a precedent.

[Travis B.]

But as for Germanic *xanduz, I consider a loan of such a basic body part term not very likely (though not impossible).

I'm afraid the quantity of non-inherited lexicon in IE languages has been largely underestimated. For example, Latin manus 'hand' has no plausible IE etymology nor obvious correspondences in other branches, except possibly in Germanic.

It's the direct borrowing of a synonym from another language that feels unlikely, though I suppose Latin bracchium 'arm' from Greek is a precedent.

The difference is that there is substantial evidence (e.g. Greek colonization of parts of the Italian peninsula, learning of Greek by the Roman upper classes in the way that English-speaking elites would learn French in a latter day) of contact between Greek on one hand and Latin and other Italic languages on the other hand, which gives the potential for borrowing between the two far more weight than the kinds of borrowing that Octaviano has been positing here.

[Richard W]

I'm afraid the quantity of non-inherited lexicon in IE languages has been largely underestimated. For example, Latin manus 'hand' has no plausible IE etymology nor obvious correspondences in other branches, except possibly in Germanic.

Again, where's the extraordinary evidence? We've said this again and again, right?

The Germanic-Latin link looks speculative, and the alleged Greek cognate is doubted. So, where's the evidence that manus is of IE origin?

[Talskubilos]

The difference is that there is substantial evidence (e.g. Greek colonization of parts of the Italian peninsula, learning of Greek by the Roman upper classes in the way that English-speaking elites would learn French in a latter day) of contact between Greek on one hand and Latin and other Italic languages on the other hand, which gives the potential for borrowing between the two far more weight than the kinds of borrowing that Octaviano has been positing here.

Your point of view implies we wouldn't be able to know (almost) anything about prehistorical languages with no written records, because not enough evidence would be available.

[Talskubilos]

The Germanic-Latin link looks speculative, and the alleged Greek cognate is doubted. So, where's the evidence that manus is of IE origin?

Exactly.

I've got my own theory about this etymology, but I think it won't be very welcomed here.

[WeepingElf]

I'm afraid the quantity of non-inherited lexicon in IE languages has been largely underestimated.

Indeed, some people over-reconstruct. This dictionary, for instance (which seems to be an updated form of Pokorny's), contains so many homonyms and synonyms that one can hardly escape the notion that many of them are probably spurious. Yet, the goal of etymology, as with any science, is to explain the unknown by the known. You try to explain the unknown (words with no etymologies, or with questionable ones) by the even more unknown (lost, unattested languages). Of course, it is often better to be honest and say that the origin of a word is unknown than to undergo mental contortions to find a far-flung counterpart in some remote corner of the IE family that seems to fit at a stretch; but what you are doing is pulling entire lost languages out of your hat which "just happen" to show the sound developments you need. That way, anything - and thereby nothing - can be proved.

And why are you frightened by your own ideas? You always say that you are "afraid" of something

[Travis B.]

The difference is that there is substantial evidence (e.g. Greek colonization of parts of the Italian peninsula, learning of Greek by the Roman upper classes in the way that English-speaking elites would learn French in a latter day) of contact between Greek on one hand and Latin and other Italic languages on the other hand, which gives the potential for borrowing between the two far more weight than the kinds of borrowing that Octaviano has been positing here.

Your point of view implies we wouldn't be able to know (almost) anything about prehistorical languages with no written records, because not enough evidence would be available.

It does not mean we cannot know anything about preliterate cultures and the interactions between their languages; it just means that we need more solid evidence in lieu of written records. The comparative method of course is a good means for acquiring such evidence, to show what words are cognate, and what words are borrowed or only coincidentally similar, and in the case of borrowing, what strata such words were borrowed into (e.g. it tells us that StG Pflanze was borrowed from Latin before the High German Consonant Shift).

[Talskubilos]

Indeed, some people over-reconstruct. This dictionary, for instance (which seems to be an updated form of Pokorny's), contains so many homonyms and synonyms that one can hardly escape the notion that many of them are probably spurious. Yet, the goal of etymology, as with any science, is to explain the unknown by the known. You try to explain the unknown (words with no etymologies, or with questionable ones) by the even more unknown (lost, unattested languages). Of course, it is often better to be honest and say that the origin of a word is unknown than to undergo mental contortions to find a far-flung counterpart in some remote corner of the IE family that seems to fit at a stretch; but what you are doing is pulling entire lost languages out of your hat which "just happen" to show the sound developments you need. That way, anything - and thereby nothing - can be proved.

The question is whether it's worth investigating on what we can possibly know about these "lost languages" from the (rather scarce) available data, or simply ignore them. I avocate for linguistic archaeology.

And why are you frightened by your own ideas? You always say that you are "afraid" of something

Here it goes: there's a Romance word *manja with the meaning 'skill, trick; bad habit' found in e.g. Spanish and Catalan, and the derivated verb *ad-manjare 'rig, doctor; fix, compose; contrive; get used to; manage (oneself); join in concubinate' (note: think of French affaire) which IMHO can be linked to *ad-panjare 'gather, collect; take (by force); attire, dress; fix, repair; manage (oneself)'. Although these words can't be directly derived from Latin (there's a homonymous Spanish (slang) apañar 'warp in clothes' which obviously comes from Latin pannus 'cloth, rag'), they have got possible cognates in Basque eman 'put, place; get used to' (possibly also Iberian eban) and more distantly in Uralic *pane 'put, place', Dravidian *paɳ- 'do, work', Austric *ʔPun 'gather, collect', Afrasian *bn- 'build'. So my conclusion is we're dealing with a Wanderwort related to manual work.

[Travis B.]

And why are you frightened by your own ideas? You always say that you are "afraid" of something

Here it goes: there's a Romance word *manja with the meaning 'skill, trick; bad habit' found in e.g. Spanish and Catalan, and the derivated verb *ad-manjare 'rig, doctor; fix, compose; contrive; get used to; manage (oneself); join in concubinate' (note: think of French affaire) which IMHO can be linked to *ad-panjare 'gather, collect; take (by force); attire, dress; fix, repair; manage (oneself)'. Although these words can't be directly derived from Latin (there's a homonymous Spanish (slang) apañar 'warp in clothes' which obviously comes from Latin pannus 'cloth, rag'), they have got possible cognates in Basque eman 'put, place; get used to' (possibly also Iberian eban) and more distantly in Uralic *pane 'put, place', Dravidian *paɳ- 'do, work', Austric *ʔPun 'gather, collect', Afrasian *bn- 'build'. So my conclusion is we're dealing with a Wanderwort related to manual work.

A good sign that you're reaching is when you invoke the Wanderwort...

[Richard W]

Here it goes: there's a Romance word *manja with the meaning 'skill, trick; bad habit' found in e.g. Spanish and Catalan, and the derivated verb *ad-manjare 'rig, doctor; fix, compose; contrive; get used to; manage (oneself); join in concubinate' (note: think of French affaire) which IMHO can be linked to *ad-panjare 'gather, collect; take (by force); attire, dress; fix, repair; manage (oneself)'.

Looks very like a doublet of Romance *manidiare > Spanish mane(j)ar. Surprise, surprise, this word is seen as a derivative of Latin manus.

[Talskubilos]

Here it goes: there's a Romance word *manja with the meaning 'skill, trick; bad habit' found in e.g. Spanish and Catalan, and the derivated verb *ad-manjare 'rig, doctor; fix, compose; contrive; get used to; manage (oneself); join in concubinate' (note: think of French affaire) which IMHO can be linked to *ad-panjare 'gather, collect; take (by force); attire, dress; fix, repair; manage (oneself)'.

Looks very like a doublet of Romance *manidiare > Spanish mane(j)ar. Surprise, surprise, this word is seen as a derivative of Latin manus.

That's right, but the meaning is more restricted than that of the other verbs, and there's no other explanation of the alternation /m/ ~ /p/ in Romance besides independent borrowing.

There're also Basque ap(h)aindu 'prepare, set; ornate' and ap(h)ain 'elegant', with a semantic parallel in Latin ēlegāns 'refined, distinguished' from legō 'gather, pile up'.

Although these words can't be directly derived from Latin (there's a homonymous Spanish (slang) apañar 'warp in clothes' which obviously comes from Latin pannus 'cloth, rag'), they have got possible cognates in Basque eman 'put, place; get used to' (possibly also Iberian eban) and more distantly in Uralic *pane 'put, place', Dravidian *paɳ- 'do, work', Austric *ʔPun 'gather, collect', Afrasian *bn- 'build'. So my conclusion is we're dealing with a Wanderwort related to manual work.

I bet *mVn- < *bVn- by assimilation.

[Nortaneous]

But as for Germanic *xanduz, I consider a loan of such a basic body part term not very likely (though not impossible).

I'm afraid the quantity of non-inherited lexicon in IE languages has been largely underestimated. For example, Latin manus 'hand' has no plausible IE etymology nor obvious correspondences in other branches, except possibly in Germanic.

What's wrong with the etymology listed on Wiktionary?

[Richard W]

What's wrong with the etymology listed on Wiktionary?

When one looks at the alleged Greek cognate, μάρη, one finds:

*Etymology*
Unknown. Forssman doubts the authenticity of this word and Blanc supposes that the form was coined to explain εὐμαρής (eumarḗs). Former comparisons with Germanic and Celtic words, to be found in Frisk, are now obsolete.

That leaves just Germanic and Latin, where we find quite different formations from the alleged stem *meh₂ 'to beckon', for which I can't find any support even in Pokorny, let alone on Wiktionary. What examples are there of Latin turning heteroclitics into u-nouns in -u? Additionally, having just Germanic + Latin fails the rule of three. What's more, if the Germanic and Latin words were connected, it might easily be just Western IE.

Apparently there can be a fashion to have a word for 'hand' start with /m/ - putative American Indian cognates of one another starting with /m/ have been dismissed as manifestations of a general American tendency.