Zompist Bboard Again

For what it's worth I find myself equally unconvinced by arguments of the form "X is common, which argues against its truth because it implies X doesn't change easily due to sound change and we know Proto-Indo-European broke up into daughter languages so we should expect it to show unstable structures" and arguments of the form "X is uncommon, which argues against its truth because we can be reasonably certain Proto-Indo-European was a language spoken by people not substantially different than us, so it probably didn't show typologically unusual features".

Travis B. wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2024 4:40 pm And on that note, IIRC I have seen people who have posited that the laryngeals were something like *x *xʷ *χ.

This is certainly appealing in its symmetry, although as I understand it there's some evidence (e.g. Sanskrit pibati from a reduplicated *peh₃- > *pi-ph₃-) to suggest that *h₃ was voiced.

Ketsuban wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2024 4:05 am For what it's worth I find myself equally unconvinced by arguments of the form "X is common, which argues against its truth because it implies X doesn't change easily due to sound change and we know Proto-Indo-European broke up into daughter languages so we should expect it to show unstable structures" and arguments of the form "X is uncommon, which argues against its truth because we can be reasonably certain Proto-Indo-European was a language spoken by people not substantially different than us, so it probably didn't show typologically unusual features".

I see how both of these arguments can be unconvincing. I personally am of the view, though, that one should treat reconstructed languages as languages spoken by real people and not merely reconstruction artifacts, so I tend to favor reconstructions that are plausible over deliberately disfavoring plausible reconstructions because "well if it were plausible it would have never changed and we would see it in daughters".

With that in mind, I would say that there is no reason why *k could not have palatalized in some daughters, leading to the pull-chain *k *kʷ *q > *c *kʷ *q > *c *kʷ *k and so on (or conversely a push-chain where *q started getting fronted, resulting in *k fronting as well to keep the two distinct). There is no reason to deliberately choose a less plausible reconstruction indefinitely back in time just because "if it were stable it would have survived to date".

Ketsuban wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2024 4:05 am

Travis B. wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2024 4:40 pm And on that note, IIRC I have seen people who have posited that the laryngeals were something like *x *xʷ *χ.

This is certainly appealing in its symmetry, although as I understand it there's some evidence (e.g. Sanskrit pibati from a reduplicated *peh₃- > *pi-ph₃-) to suggest that *h₃ was voiced.

There is no reason that *h₃ could not have become voiced in the daughter that spawned Indo-Aryan. For instance, I have heard it posited that ME /x/ may have become voiced in the daughter that spawned StdE in positions where it did not merge with /f/ prior to disappearing altogether. (Of course, that is based largely on orthographic evidence, i.e. why it was written <gh>, parallel to, say, how /ɣ/ was commonly written <gh> in MD.)

Travis B. wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2024 3:51 pm There is no reason that *h₃ could not have become voiced in the daughter that spawned Indo-Aryan. For instance, I have heard it posited that ME /x/ may have become voiced in the daughter that spawned StdE in positions where it did not merge with /f/ prior to disappearing altogether. (Of course, that is based largely on orthographic evidence, i.e. why it was written <gh>, parallel to, say, how /ɣ/ was commonly written <gh> in MD.)

I never thought of this, but it actually makes an awful lot of sense.

However, I find it hard to believe that the laryngeals patterned exactly with the three velar series. Because then *h₂ and *h₃ would have merged in satem branches, etc etc etc. Maybe it still makes sense, and in any case this inventory looks pretty typologically plausible to me, more in the sense of PIE being internally consistent than consistent with changes we see in the daughters.

I've also heard the theory advanced that in PIE, there were only two velar series, and the front velar series arose originally as allophones of the plain velar series in a broader trend of palatalization. To me, this does seem to smack of prioritizing evidence from Western IE branches, which do not show distinct reflexes at all. (On the other hand, I am also inclined to view reconstruction of the "voiced aspirates" having breathy-voiced pronunciation in the opposite sort of way, as prioritizing evidence from Indo-Aryan.)

I found myself on the Wikipedia page for s-mobile and noted a number of roots with *a, which is generally not considered solidly reconstructible for Proto-Indo-European, so I went through not just the roots on that page but the roots on Wiktionary's list containing *a; I noted which ones are mentioned on Wiktionary, what Pronk (2019) has to say about them if anything and the general vibe I get from them. (This is very much not comprehensive; Wiktionary has an awkward distinction between "roots" and "lemmas", so I didn't look at for example *albʰós, for which Pronk notes the unstable ground it's resting on since Hittite al-pa-aš "cloud" is primarily associated with storms and rain rather than the kind of white fluffy clouds implied by the semantic association.)

• *bak- "club, peg, stick" is a classic; it seems nobody can ever fully dismiss it despite it stinking like week-old fish because there's no other conclusive explanation for the things it ties together. The semantics are terrible: Germanic *pagilaz (English pail) is just about defensible as rod > measuring rod > liquid measure > liquid container; Celtic *bakkos "hook" strains credibility; Slavic *bokъ "flank, side" feels nonsensical. Latin baculum < *bakklom is based on no non-Latin evidence and seems to match up dubiously with Greek βάκτρον.
• *h₁yaǵ- "sacrifice, worship" is geographically restricted; with the exception of one Anatolian (which I can't find) and one Tocharian word (of which this dictionary says "uncertain") all the examples come from Greek, Latin and Sanskrit.
• *kagʰ- is largely limited to Italic and Celtic. It's also an instance of Wiktionary disagreeing with itself: the etymology of Armenian cʻank is given as "uncertain"; the page for Sanskrit kákṣa gives PII *káćšas < *koḱs-o-s from the PIE root *koḱs- "joint", which also feels like a root on dubious ground; and the page for Welsh cael says it's a syncopated form of caffel, ultimately from the zero-grade of...
• *kap- is an instance of Wiktionary just plain being wrong; Pronk is quite decisive in showing the correct reconstruction is *kh₂ep-. (Yes, this is out of alphabetical order.)
• *kakka- is clearly a kind of sound-symbolism; it stands out to me that the only family within Indo-European with a huge consonant shift (Germanic) retains it as a "loanword" to hang onto the velar sound rather than continuing something like **hahha. Pronk dismisses *atta "dad" along similar lines.
• *skabʰ- is addressed by Pronk directly; while he doesn't come down on the side of a specific reconstruction, he presents alternatives which are more parsimonious in not needing *a to function.
• *(s)kand- is listed on the Wikipedia s-mobile page; while it has no Wiktionary link, other words reference it in their etymology section with a red link. It's another geographically restricted one: there's no Celtic, Germanic or Balto-Slavic lexemes. κάνδαρος "charcoal" is a little strange semantically, but sparkle > embers > charcoal seems... okay? The main problem is just the fact it has *a when so many of those are coming up snake eyes.
• *(s)mal- is a joke; it lists *(s)mel- on the page itself as an "alternative form".
• *(s)kap- is glossed as "tool"; we're given Greek σκεπάρνον "carpenter's axe/adze/tool for hewing and smoothing the trunks of trees" and Latin cāpus "???". I'm not sure what a castrated rooster has to do with "tool", but both of these words are listed as probably of substrate origin on Wiktionary so I feel reasonably confident calling this a phantom.
• *(s)wagʰ- is glossed as "resound"; we're given Greek ἠχή "noise, sound" and English sough. Both words' Wiktionary pages list *(s)weh₂gʰ- as the PIE root, making this the easiest murder mystery of all time.

This leaves the interesting one: *(s)kʷal-o-, glossed as "big fish". We have Avestan kara "kind of fish" (I hate this kind of gloss; sure, not every family can be like the Polynesian languages where animal words can be tidily reconstructed as referring to a specific genus, but it always reminds me of Vovin's criticism of the Altaic hypothesis), Germanic *hwalaz, Greek ἄσπαλος (glossed by Hesychius as ἰχθύς "fish"), Latin squalus "shark" and Prussian kalis "sheatfish". This isn't the most geographically diverse root in the world, but the vibes I get from it are more solid than something like *káput, the Germanic *hwalaz can refer to catfish (e.g. German Wels) as well as whales, and the sheatfish species Silurus glanis has the distinct advantage of being a popular sport fish native to the Black and Caspian Seas, not far from the Indo-European Urheimat in what's now Ukraine.

What are the s-mobile variants of *h₁yaǵ-? Wiktionary lists none.

There are none, that one came from Wiktionary itself rather than the s-mobile page.

Ketsuban wrote: ↑Sat May 11, 2024 8:24 am *bak- "club, peg, stick" is a classic; it seems nobody can ever fully dismiss it despite it stinking like week-old fish because there's no other conclusive explanation for the things it ties together. The semantics are terrible: Germanic *pagilaz (English pail) is just about defensible as rod > measuring rod > liquid measure > liquid container; Celtic *bakkos "hook" strains credibility; Slavic *bokъ "flank, side" feels nonsensical. Latin baculum < *bakklom is based on no non-Latin evidence and seems to match up dubiously with Greek βάκτρον.

I feel that we have three options here:

• Explain it as "onomatopoeic" and ignore all the questions that brings up.
• Embrace the null hypothesis and say that these roots are unrelated. Sure, they look vaguely similar, but they also don't have meanings which are very related. Perhaps Latin and Germanic are related (because another meaning of *pagilaz given is "peg"), but maybe Celtic (and especially Slavic) are just unrelated. If we looked at English over time, we might see certain words as essentially coming out of thin air. For example, if we didn't preserve phrases like "what's up", "'sup", "'sup", and so forth, the use of "suh" /sʌ/ as a greeting appears to have originated from nowhere. (Or, for a more direct example, take "simp".) It may well just be the case that we are missing intermediate forms of this sort that would hypothetically have existed in Pre-Proto-Slavic, -Celtic, and so forth tying these words to other roots than *bak, or even arising in irregular ways from other words.
• Accept that "terrible" semantics can and do happen in real languages. Consider the evolution of the word "boomer". The actual etymology is from the root "boom-" along the lines of ("make a loud and deep noise" > "do very well" > "time when lots of children were being born" > "one born during said time" > "older person with outdated political views"). If Proto-Germanic *bōmarijaz were proposed to descend from PIE *b^hoh₂m- along these same lines, there would be ridicule because this etymology is absurd! And yet it happened in real life.

You must not forget that PIE was no pristine isolated language, but was in contact with other languages around it, and thus probably contained loanwords that were borrowed into the language at a late stage when /a/ and /b/ had become phonemic. Such loanwords need not comply with the reconstructed word structure constraints - the example of /f/ in Slavic shows that even phonemes can be borrowed.

WeepingElf wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2024 2:59 pmthe example of /f/ in Slavic shows that even phonemes can be borrowed.

And English, when French loans phonemicized voicing distinctions in fricatives.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2024 5:06 pmLikewise, ME /x/ either disappeared or turned into [f], outside Early Modern Scots, without a corresponding change of /k/.

To be annoyingly late and pedantic, /x/ was also retained in the Yorkshire-Lancashire border area until very recently; the 1950-1961 Survey of English Dialects recorded light night [lɪçt nɪçt] at Muker in the Yorkshire Dales, while in Alexander Ellis's 1889 The Existing Phonology of English Dialects, forms of this sort are recorded alongside bought sigh tough [bɔxt sɪç tɔʊ̯x] at the Colne Valley further south along the border; for more discussion, see The Dialect of Dentdale in the West Riding of Yorkshire, § 8:46. Less surprisingly, Ellis also records retention of /x/ in areas of Northumberland adjacent to Scotland.

abahot wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2024 9:30 amDoes anyone have any unconventional ideas on the pronunciation of laryngeals?

Since I know people here will at least get a kick out of it: here is one recent article draft / essay by Alexis Manaster Ramer on an "Efficient Theory", which seems to be suggesting vocalic values of laryngeals as primary and consonantal ones as secondary — though the details are not particularly clearly explained I think (he probably has more on the topic somewhere among the dozens and dozens of drafts on his academia.edu page and in the 2020 paper cited in this one).

Tropylium wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2024 5:04 am

abahot wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2024 9:30 amDoes anyone have any unconventional ideas on the pronunciation of laryngeals?

Since I know people here will at least get a kick out of it: here is one recent article draft / essay by Alexis Manaster Ramer on an "Efficient Theory", which seems to be suggesting vocalic values of laryngeals as primary and consonantal ones as secondary — though the details are not particularly clearly explained I think (he probably has more on the topic somewhere among the dozens and dozens of drafts on his academia.edu page and in the 2020 paper cited in this one).

Regardless of the merits this theory may have (and prima facie it doesn’t look obviously implausible), this paper reads like pure crackpottery to me…

bradrn wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2024 6:36 am

Tropylium wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2024 5:04 am

abahot wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2024 9:30 amDoes anyone have any unconventional ideas on the pronunciation of laryngeals?

Since I know people here will at least get a kick out of it: here is one recent article draft / essay by Alexis Manaster Ramer on an "Efficient Theory", which seems to be suggesting vocalic values of laryngeals as primary and consonantal ones as secondary — though the details are not particularly clearly explained I think (he probably has more on the topic somewhere among the dozens and dozens of drafts on his academia.edu page and in the 2020 paper cited in this one).

Regardless of the merits this theory may have (and prima facie it doesn’t look obviously implausible), this paper reads like pure crackpottery to me…

Does it read to you that way because of the aggressive language the author takes recourse to? Indeed, that puts me off, as it creates the impression that the author is trying to defend the indefendible. The idea itself is IMHO not actually crackpottish but old wine in new skins - as he says himself, the "coefficents sonantiques" were originally considered more vowel-like than consonant-like, or at least in the same class of phonemes with both vocalic and consonantal allophones as the "sonants" - no relevant scholar really denies that, even if I feel as if the laryngeals were slightly more consonantal than the "traditional" sonorants, but I am not sure, and they are clearly much more "vowel-like" than *s (which IMHO rules out Kloekhorst's uvular stops, BTW).

Also, I found the term "Catatolian" in this little essay, which according to context means "non-Anatolian IE": quite a creative naming (in Greek, kata 'down' is the antonym of ana 'up'), and also quite handy and catchy. But what if someone discovers a sister branch of Anatolian (I mean, a branch more closely related to Anatolian than to the rest of IE, but still clearly distinct from Anatolian) somewhere outside Anatolia (e.g., in Western Europe)? (Indeed, I considered the name "Catatolian" for such a sister branch whose former existence in Western Europe I hypothesize, before deciding to simply call it "Southwestern IE": "Southern IE" would then be Anatolian and "Southwestern IE", and "Northern IE" the other known IE languages, which Manaster Ramer calls "Catatolian".)

WeepingElf wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2024 10:10 am

bradrn wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2024 6:36 am

Tropylium wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2024 5:04 am

Since I know people here will at least get a kick out of it: here is one recent article draft / essay by Alexis Manaster Ramer on an "Efficient Theory", which seems to be suggesting vocalic values of laryngeals as primary and consonantal ones as secondary — though the details are not particularly clearly explained I think (he probably has more on the topic somewhere among the dozens and dozens of drafts on his academia.edu page and in the 2020 paper cited in this one).

Regardless of the merits this theory may have (and prima facie it doesn’t look obviously implausible), this paper reads like pure crackpottery to me…

Does it read to you that way because of the aggressive language the author takes recourse to?

Yes, precisely.

Also, I found the term "Catatolian" in this little essay, which according to context means "non-Anatolian IE": quite a creative naming (in Greek, kata 'down' is the antonym of ana 'up')

Oh yes, I quite liked that little detail as well.

Do you think there's still artifacts bearing evidence of historical Indo-European languages waiting to be found which can improve our reconstructions, or is it more likely that we have everything we'll ever get and the best we can hope for is philologists finding specks of gold in their pans?

Zju wrote: ↑Sat May 04, 2024 11:15 am Dunno if this has been discussed already here, but PIE *Hebl- 'apple' may not be a loanword at all, and instead just be a metastethised form of *meHlom.

Not exactly. These are differents renderings of a Wanderwort also found in Hittite sam(a)lu- 'apple (tree)' and which probably originated in the Middle East (Kurdistan), the region where apple trees are native from.

Ketsuban wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2024 11:25 am Do you think there's still artifacts bearing evidence of historical Indo-European languages waiting to be found which can improve our reconstructions, or is it more likely that we have everything we'll ever get and the best we can hope for is philologists finding specks of gold in their pans?

It is IMHO indeed possible that some such artifacts still await discovery. Maybe the Voynich Manuscript is indeed written in such a language (though I personally consider it more like that it's written in a conlang). Perhaps an Irish druid-become-monk wrote down the corpus of druidic knowledge (which may have been something like the Indian Vedas), and the manuscript he produced is waiting for discovery in some uncatalogized old Irish monastic library. Surprising archaeological discoveries are still being made in these days; think of such things as the Nebra sky disc.

I have plans for a novel in which just such a discovery is made. It will also address issues of sustainability, the human condition and the meaning of life, but the plot turns around an old book written in a Southwest IE language (Old Albic, of course ) which leads to further discoveries that constitute "either the biggest find or the biggest fraud in 21st-century philology", as one character states the issue.

Ketsuban wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2024 11:25 am Do you think there's still artifacts bearing evidence of historical Indo-European languages waiting to be found which can improve our reconstructions, or is it more likely that we have everything we'll ever get and the best we can hope for is philologists finding specks of gold in their pans?

I soooo much hope that those deciphered-by-AI-charcoaled scrolls are going to contain some obscure ancient Italic vernacular.

Sadly, those scrolls turned out to be ordinary Greek.

Aside from unpredictable discoveries of inscribed pottery in a field somewhere, I think there is a decent chance that PIE languages around the edges of the classical world will have more attestations some day, simply because there is undoubtedly more Greek and Latin material to be found that contains fragments of Gaulic, Thracian, etc. But I wouldn't hold out much hope for cuneiform Corded Warese or something really ancient like that.

Talskubilos wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2024 2:50 pm Not exactly. These are differents renderings of a Wanderwort also found in Hittite sam(a)lu- 'apple (tree)' and which probably originated in the Middle East (Kurdistan), the region where apple trees are native from.

The discussion following the post you quoted includes links to a pair of papers by Rhona Fenwick which I think adequately address the entire topic without any need to posit a Wanderwort. The Anatolian terms are just the result of s-mobile; the irregular metathesis from *meh₂l- to *h₂eml- (> *h₂ebl-) was motivated by association with *h₂em-ró- "sour" (a confusion which persists into Sanskrit as āmráḥ "mango" versus āmláḥ "tamarind"). The Kartvelian *msxal- "pear" is then simply a loanword, and *meh₂l- is explained as *meh₂- "grow, increase" plus a deverbal *-l- also found in *webʰ- "weave" > *webʰl- "weevil".

The only unexplained data point left is the Burushaski word báalt, which if there's no Wanderwort going on in the first place may have nothing to do with Indo-European at all.