Crossing our fingers
https://verduria.org/
Mainly because:
Cool, we're all happy with the reasoning so far and I agree with the criticism that a *b makes a PIE reconstruction suspicious in particular. Next step: Fenwick (op. cit.) provides an explanation of how "abVl-" can still ultimately be related to *meh₂l-, via two irregular sound changes: a metathesis *meh₂l- > *h₂eml- motivated by an association with *h₂em-ro- "sour" which persists into Sanskrit and which (with s-mobile) gives the Anatolian forms attested, and a fortition *h₂eml- > *h₂ebl- occurring after the breakup of Proto-Indo-European into its separate dialects (thus explaining the limited distribution).Talskubilos wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2024 5:22 pm Mainly because:
1) it has a limited distribution, only found in a few branches.
2) it has a non-native phoneme *b.
3) it's seemingly related to Hittite šam(a)lu-.
Sorry, but I disagree. Although I think *abVl- could be remotedly related to *meh₂l-, it can't be derived from it with regular/predictable sound changes (not ad hoc ones!), which also applies to the Anatolian word (there's no s-mobile here, for goodness sake!).Ketsuban wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2024 6:44 pm Cool, we're all happy with the reasoning so far and I agree with the criticism that a *b makes a PIE reconstruction suspicious in particular. Next step: Fenwick (op. cit.) provides an explanation of how "abVl-" can still ultimately be related to *meh₂l-, via two irregular sound changes: a metathesis *meh₂l- > *h₂eml- motivated by an association with *h₂em-ro- "sour" which persists into Sanskrit and which (with s-mobile) gives the Anatolian forms attested, and a fortition *h₂eml- > *h₂ebl- occurring after the breakup of Proto-Indo-European into its separate dialects (thus explaining the limited distribution).
This addresses all three of your criticisms without need for an unexplained loanword.
Not all sound changes are nice perfectly-regular neogrammarian ones; sometimes there's loans from related dialects (vixen) or folk etymology (eggcorn). Fenwick doesn't propose *meh₂l- > *h₂eml- > h₂ebl- as purely ad hoc changes; the association between "apple" and "sour" is backed up by evidence from Sanskrit and (as a semantic association) Germanic, and the irregular fortition m > b also occurred in Russian.Talskubilos wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2024 7:19 pm Although I think *abVl- could be remotedly related to *meh₂l-, it can't be derived from it with regular/predictable sound changes (not ad hoc ones!)
Based on what reasoning, the writing system representing it as š? S-mobile is pervasive in Indo-European, and its presence or absence is completely unpredictable.Talskubilos wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2024 7:19 pm which also applies to the Anatolian word (there's no s-mobile here, for goodness sake!).
While this is true enough, "sometimes plant names are loanwords" isn't actually evidence to support your claim - sometimes they're inherited.Talskubilos wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2024 7:19 pm On a broader context, names of plants, fruits and trees (phytonyms) are often borrowed. To quote an example, Latin citrus and Greek kédros are instances of a Wanderwort of Semitic origin: *kˁtr- 'smoke, incense', referring to the aromatic characteristics of these trees, either the wood (cedar, thuja) or the fruit (citron).
isn't distribution a part of how we determine which branches are which?Talskubilos wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2024 5:22 pmMainly because:
1) it has a limited distribution, only found in a few branches.
Could the b be something that those few branches developed as they grew into their own branches?2) it has a non-native phoneme *b.
Um...given that Hittite is a card-carrying member of the Indo-European family (at least, it was, when last i checked)...why would that stop *abVl- from being a native PIE word? your #3 folds into your #1, if I'm reading that correctly.3) it's seemingly related to Hittite šam(a)lu-.
Well, this is his theory. Mine is we're dealing with a Wanderwort with several reflexes in IE and elsewhere: Nakh-Daghestanian *mhalV- ~ *mhanV- 'warm', Uralic *omena ~ *omVrV 'apple', Basque udare, udari, madari 'pear', umo, umao (B) 'ripe, seasoned'.Ketsuban wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2024 8:44 pmNot all sound changes are nice perfectly-regular neogrammarian ones; sometimes there's loans from related dialects (vixen) or folk etymology (eggcorn). Fenwick doesn't propose *meh₂l- > *h₂eml- > h₂ebl- as purely ad hoc changes; the association between "apple" and "sour" is backed up by evidence from Sanskrit and (as a semantic association) Germanic, and the irregular fortition m > b also occurred in Russian.
Based on what reasoning, the writing system representing it as š? S-mobile is pervasive in Indo-European, and its presence or absence is completely unpredictable.[/quote]Talskubilos wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2024 7:19 pm which also applies to the Anatolian word (there's no s-mobile here, for goodness sake!).
I say Wanderwort when I mean it.Talskubilos wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2024 7:19 pmAlso, stop saying "Wanderwort" when you mean "loanword".
o-kay...and can you provide a title and-or a link so i can find said list?Talskubilos wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2024 1:28 amI'd suggest you read Mallory & Adams own list of "NW IE" words.
This is quite a list.Talskubilos wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2024 1:23 am Well, this is [their] theory. Mine is we're dealing with a Wanderwort with several reflexes in IE and elsewhere: Nakh-Daghestanian *mhalV- ~ *mhanV- 'warm', Uralic *omena ~ *omVrV 'apple', Basque udare, udari, madari 'pear', umo, umao (B) 'ripe, seasoned'.
Yes, this is s-mobile; you can tell because the same roots are found elsewhere in Indo-European without an initial *s, as in Latin oculus and unguis. (There's also *h₂eḱru "bitter", found in Hittite with s-mobile as išḫaḫru and in Sanskrit without it as áśru, both "tear". Other branches seem to reflect a compound *dr̥ḱ-h₂eḱru "eye-bitter", hence Latin lacrima and the earlier incorrect reconstruction *dáḱru.)Talskubilos wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2024 7:19 pm There're some cases of Hittite š- corresponding to PIE *H3-, namely šākuwa- 'eye' < PIE *H3ekʷ- 'to see' and šankuwāi- 'nail; a unit of linear measure' < PIE *H3n(o)gh- 'nail'.
Apparently not, since you just used it to describe a word loaned the incredible distance... across the Mediterranean.
I disagree; s-mobile appears before consonants, which isn't the case. For the Sanskrit word you quoted, see Gamkrelidze & Ivanov (1995): Indo-European and the Indo-EuropeansKetsuban wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2024 3:44 amYes, this is s-mobile; you can tell because the same roots are found elsewhere in Indo-European without an initial *s, as in Latin oculus and unguis. (There's also *h₂eḱru "bitter", found in Hittite with s-mobile as išḫaḫru and in Sanskrit without it as áśru, both "tear".Talskubilos wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2024 7:19 pm There're some cases of Hittite š- corresponding to PIE *H3-, namely šākuwa- 'eye' < PIE *H3ekʷ- 'to see' and šankuwāi- 'nail; a unit of linear measure' < PIE *H3n(o)gh- 'nail'.
This is the precisely why I call it a Wanderwort.
I think you may have missed the considerable sarcasm in Ketsuban’s post. ‘Loanword across the Mediterranean’ is not an ‘incredible distance’ at all.Talskubilos wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2024 4:08 amThis is the precisely why I call it a Wanderwort.
Thank you - a valuable resource.
*h₃ekʷ-, *h₃negʰ- and *h₂eḱru all begin with laryngeals, which last I checked are generally considered to be consonants. (I am aware of the arguments for vocalic allophones; it seems a little odd to me that a language would be comfortable with *m, *n, *s, *r and *l as syllable nuclei yet require a vocalic allophone for dorsal fricatives, but if you want to argue the initial *h₃ in *h₃nṓgʰs is actually [ɵ] then more power to you. It's still a candidate for s-mobile, since it's not a vowel.)Talskubilos wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2024 4:08 am I disagree; s-mobile appears before consonants, which isn't the case.
You could have summarised the argument rather than expect me to get a copy of a book, but it doesn't matter since I have more: Tocharian A ākär, Lithuanian ãšara.Talskubilos wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2024 4:08 am For the Sanskrit word you quoted, see Gamkrelidze & Ivanov (1995): Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans
Well, Gamkrelidze & Ivanov's ideas are quite eccentric and not accepted by most Indo-Europeanists, so it is not very advisable to rely on their work. Their version of the PIE lexicon is full of spurious items and questionable reconstructions. Better use Mallory & Adams instead.Ketsuban wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2024 5:53 amYou could have summarised the argument rather than expect me to get a copy of a book, but it doesn't matter since I have more: Tocharian A ākär, Lithuanian ãšara.Talskubilos wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2024 4:08 am For the Sanskrit word you quoted, see Gamkrelidze & Ivanov (1995): Indo-European and the Indo-EuropeansMore fool me for thinking one example would suffice to show a pattern.
Sorry, I was in a hurry this morning.Ketsuban wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2024 5:53 am*h₃ekʷ-, *h₃negʰ- and *h₂eḱru all begin with laryngeals, which last I checked are generally considered to be consonants. (I am aware of the arguments for vocalic allophones; it seems a little odd to me that a language would be comfortable with *m, *n, *s, *r and *l as syllable nuclei yet require a vocalic allophone for dorsal fricatives, but if you want to argue the initial *h₃ in *h₃nṓgʰs is actually [ɵ] then more power to you. It's still a candidate for s-mobile, since it's not a vowel.)
Still it's interesting to study, because they illustrate how part of IE lexicon relative to fauna and flora has been borrowed from other families.WeepingElf wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2024 6:05 amWell, Gamkrelidze & Ivanov's ideas are quite eccentric and not accepted by most Indo-Europeanists, so it is not very advisable to rely on their work. Their version of the PIE lexicon is full of spurious items and questionable reconstructions. Better use Mallory & Adams instead.
As it happens, the Manaster Ramer paper we were just talking about is precisely a suggestion that the laryngeals are vocalic.Ketsuban wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2024 5:53 am*h₃ekʷ-, *h₃negʰ- and *h₂eḱru all begin with laryngeals, which last I checked are generally considered to be consonants. (I am aware of the arguments for vocalic allophones; it seems a little odd to me that a language would be comfortable with *m, *n, *s, *r and *l as syllable nuclei yet require a vocalic allophone for dorsal fricatives, but if you want to argue the initial *h₃ in *h₃nṓgʰs is actually [ɵ] then more power to you. It's still a candidate for s-mobile, since it's not a vowel.)Talskubilos wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2024 4:08 am I disagree; s-mobile appears before consonants, which isn't the case.
And Fenwick, writing in 2016 and well aware of Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, points out that the existing well-documented process of s-mobile is a more parsimonious explanation than a magic fricative which turns into a pumpkin as soon as someone tries to write it.Talskubilos wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2024 7:45 am In summary, Gamkrelidze & Ivanov posit a "compact fricative" sibilant *ŝ- in PIE which would account for Ø- in Sanskrit and š- in Hittite (e.g. šakuwa-) and t- in Luwian (e.g. tawi- 'eyes').
Unless they're not, which is the entire basis of contention here.Talskubilos wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2024 7:45 am Still it's interesting to study, because they illustrate how part of IE lexicon relative to fauna and flora has been borrowed from other families.
I'm obviously a fan of a little more levity in academic discussion, but I couldn't actually figure out what Manaster Ramer was trying to say because they write like a conspiracy theorist.bradrn wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2024 7:49 am As it happens, the Manaster Ramer paper we were just talking about is precisely a suggestion that the laryngeals are vocalic.
Although I don't fully agree with Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, I think the mainstream theory doesn't explain the origin of s-mobile, which IMHO could be some kind of fossilized (i.e. no longer productive) prefix.Ketsuban wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2024 9:12 amAnd Fenwick, writing in 2016 and well aware of Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, points out that the existing well-documented process of s-mobile is a more parsimonious explanation than a magic fricative which turns into a pumpkin as soon as someone tries to write it.Talskubilos wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2024 7:45 am In summary, Gamkrelidze & Ivanov posit a "compact fricative" sibilant *ŝ- in PIE which would account for Ø- in Sanskrit and š- in Hittite (e.g. šakuwa-) and t- in Luwian (e.g. tawi- 'eyes').
Thank you for that. This will help.