Julius Pokorny reconstructed the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) etymon *dʰǵʰū- (which was later updated to *dʰǵʰuh₁-). This was to explain apparent cognates in Baltic (Lithuanian žuvìs, Lettish zivs) and Greco-Armenian (Greek ἰχθύς ikhthús[1]; Old Armenian ձուկն jukn) languages.
Yet given the geographical restriction of the cognate set and given the strangely similar Ugaritic word, *dagu [dg] 'fish'[2][3], why should we not instead ponder a more recent source by way of a Mediterranean loanword?
NOTES
[1] Please note that the Greek reflex contains an irregular prothetic i- while a far more widely evidenced root, *dʰǵʰōm 'earth', has become khthōn. If we wish as linguists to obey our own sound laws, this 'fish' root must be abandoned in favour a more recent origin.
But this Semitic root itself only exists in Hebrew and Ugaritic. There's also the Altaic root *diagi (Mongolian, Korean, Japanese)and Uralic *totki. Possibly also Proto-Eskimo *ǝqaɫuɣ/iqaɫuɣ. All of this suggests a Nostratic root that was borrowed into Hebrew and Ugaritic.
ReplyDeleteI'm going to ignore the quackery about how *ǝqaɫuɣ is somehow connected with *dʰǵʰuh₁-.
ReplyDeleteThe only acceptable portion of your argument is that the attestation of the Semitic root is limited.
The only problem is the Greek word. It may be a late Greek development.
ReplyDelete1) First, we shouldn't forget the other factors what can modify a word, such as, say, folk etymology (i found ἰχνεύω "to track out, hunt after, seek out"). Or it may some kind of fisher's taboo. Or altogether.
2) *dʰǵʰu - and *dʰǵʰom- might have different consonant clasters in oblique cases in Proto-Greek dialects, say,
3 consonants: gen. *dʰgʰwéH-S > *i-dʰgʰwéH-S > *ἰχθυές > ἰχθύος, but
2 consontants: gen. *dʰgʰom-és (simplified, instead of earlier *(dʰ)ǵʰmés) > χθονός
3) *dʰǵʰu- is very similar to *dʰǵʰom, so maybe in the early PIE *dʰǵʰu- meant something like "earth (low) creatures", i.e. snakes (compare to Slavic *zьmьja < *zьm- < *dʰǵʰm-), lizards, fish.
I wouldn't make make big assumptions based on a single example. Exceptions happen here and there from times to time.
Also, fish isn't a cultural term, their habitat is everywhere, there is no point in borrowing this word.
ReplyDeleteCarsten: "First, we shouldn't forget the other factors what can modify a word, such as, say, folk etymology [...]"
ReplyDeleteUnless you have something more substantial than vague possibilities, they should hardly outweigh the known facts. "Maybe this, maybe that." No way. Let's talk specific facts.
"*dʰǵʰu - and *dʰǵʰom- might have different consonant clasters in oblique cases [...]"
And following that line of reasoning, how then do we explain in a historically plausible way where Ugaritic dg and Hebrew dag (דג) comes from? Why such similar roots? I have trouble accepting mere coincidence here.
"Also, fish isn't a cultural term, their habitat is everywhere, there is no point in borrowing this word."
This is an invalid assumption. There was no point for English to borrow they and their from Old Norse but reality is stranger than fiction.
In fact the intensive language contact between Norse and Anglo-Saxon populations that caused these borrowings is a good parallel for the likely bilingualism among the Mycenaean- and Minoan-speaking populations of the 2nd millennium BCE. Bilingualism enables trade.
Oh I should also add another factor. The fish has been a religious symbol for ages. The Greek Christians began using the fish to symbolize Christ however this is originally a pagan icon. Icons of faith are indeed relevant to a culture and thus capable of being borrowed.
ReplyDelete"Maybe this, maybe that." No way. Let's talk specific facts."
ReplyDeleteIn real, attested languages (not controversial hypotethised nostratic-level stuff with superficial similarities), such kind of slight alterations, driven by obscure internal causes, happens very often. All the forms are OK except the Greek i-. When, do you think, the borrowing took place? If it were the Common Indoeuropean (considering it is u-thematic word which wasn't productinve in late PIE), then the Greek form is just a late Greek development and this late innovation can't be given as a proof. If it were post-common Indoeuropean dialects (which is hardly possible otherwise the languages would use the more productive o-root), then the forms would be totally different in each language, as it's the case with late Wanderworts. But here the match is 99.9%, just with a slight prothetic vowel.
then do we explain in a historically plausible way where Ugaritic dg and Hebrew dag (דג) comes from"
It's just two sounds. What's the mathematical possibility for such a coincidence? Huge. Especially with velar and dental consonants, which are among the most common sounds (see Uralic *totke) And of course, you don't explain the aspiration and the unexpected -w- in the PIE root.
This is an invalid assumption. There was no point for English to borrow they and their from Old Norse but reality is stranger than fiction.
Yeah but you again ignore the other factors. First, borrowing pronouns is a very rare pheonomenon and can't be given as an evidence. Second, it seems like Old English pronouns were replaced with the Norse equivalents because the latter were more distinguishable in Northern English pronunciation than the original Anglo-Saxon ones. Otherwise it's a rare phenomenon.
Oh I should also add another factor. The fish has been a religious symbol for ages
Then it would be nice if you gave examples of such borrowing in other languages. In English, "fish" wasn't replaced with French or Norse equivalents, even though pronouns were. Actually, "fish" is seen to be so stable that it was added to the Swadesh list under number 19.
So, a late internal Greek development is a better candidate here, with all the typology included.
The burden of proof to support Pokorny's root, proposed far back in 1959, is your own to grapple with.
ReplyDeleteThe facts remain that the cognate set is problematic and poorly explained. The geographical distribution is doubly restricted to a small subsection of IE languages. This is not proof of an Indo-European root. This is in fact proof that the root doesn't work.
If you wish to rebut competently, then you must properly explain the prothesis in Greek without appeal to additional hypotheses without facts or pugnacious, on-the-fly pet theories of your own to obstruct. Attacking opposition with strawmen alluding to "hypotethised nostratic-level stuff" doesn't convince, nor does your ignorance on how borrowing works in respect to varying levels of language contact. Try reading Markedness and language change: the Romani sample by Viktor Elšik and Yaron Matras, 2006. The Swadesh list is a shoddy guide and certainly not meant to be an absolute about what may or may not be borrowed. You misunderstand.
"Then it would be nice if you gave examples of such borrowing in other languages."
For example, the Eastern Ngumpin languages borrowed yawu from Western Mindi *yaku (Nash/Henderson, Language in native title, 2002, p.268). Welsh pysgodyn came from Latin piscis (Davis, Development of Celtic Linguistics, page ix). Sure, fish are everywhere, but so are borrowings.