tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post752474412148598523..comments2023-09-24T05:45:23.811-05:00Comments on Paleoglot: Pondering on the phrase 'capite velato'Glen Gordonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comBlogger29125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-88249082927694870222010-10-06T22:48:11.771-05:002010-10-06T22:48:11.771-05:00It's pure fantasy and the lack of regular corr...It's pure fantasy and the lack of regular correspondences proves it:<br /><br />1. TochA <i>śpal</i> and Gk <a href="http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=kefalh/&la=greek&prior=kefalargi/a" rel="nofollow">κεφαλή</a> show inconsistent accent.<br />2. A correspondence of Germanic <b>*g-</b> and Greek <i>k-</i> may be rejected outright.<br />3. The Germanic cognates offered don&#Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-24029316811524564422010-10-06T22:23:15.492-05:002010-10-06T22:23:15.492-05:00Something's been bothering me about this topic...Something's been bothering me about this topic: how does the PIE root *ghebhel (Tocharian A <i>śpal</i> "head", Greek <i>kephalē</i> "head", Old Irish <i>gabul</i> "forked twig", Old English <i>gafol/geafel</i> "fork", MHG <i>gabel</i> "pitchfork", Old Norse <i>gafl</i> and Modern English <i>gable</i>) relate to this, or does is it relevant atCasey Goransonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15515485425230479050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-31877114491278584752010-10-05T03:58:02.405-05:002010-10-05T03:58:02.405-05:00Slight correction:
I mentioned Pliny in support ...<b>Slight correction</b>: <br /><br />I mentioned Pliny in support of the linguistic relationship between Rhaetian and Etruscan. I really meant Livy (see the "entry point" thread for the exact link), who was also a close neighbour of the Rhaetians, but from Padua, to the east. <br /><br />Pliny, from Como, to the west, was more concerned with DNA: <br /><br />"It is supposed that Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14665950907056264174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-4077792175663585012010-10-04T01:46:50.745-05:002010-10-04T01:46:50.745-05:00Re the longer-range Central European part of the q...Re the longer-range Central European part of the question (1600 BCE), I think <b>Gråhatt</b> would be more qualified to comment on his initial idea. <br /><br />Concerning the <b>Rhaetic</b> language more specifically and of course viewing everything as "work in progress", which may require a change of opinion on the basis of new data:<br /><br />1) The <b>linguistic data</b> indicate aUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14665950907056264174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-51725544242068057492010-10-02T21:09:23.664-05:002010-10-02T21:09:23.664-05:00Francesco: "I think the text should be amende...<b>Francesco: <i>"I think the text should be amended in the sense that, as mentioned above, it is almost impossible that speakers of Rhaetian, in the northern part of their territory, passed directly from Rhaetian to Germanic as late as the 3rd century AD."</i></b><br /><br />Yes, I suppose so. I haven't noticed much overt Celtic influence in the Rhaetic language personally. But Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-19748834077061295312010-10-02T20:58:39.218-05:002010-10-02T20:58:39.218-05:00Francesco,
1600 BCE?! This is now starting to sou...Francesco,<br /><br />1600 BCE?! This is now starting to sound like sci-fi fantasy. Much too early, I'm afraid. I really don't see the necessity of this when later loans suffice.<br /><br />I notice that your emphasis is much too weighted on archaeological data instead of linguistic data and I always become leery of lines of reasoning that casually treat genetics, culture and language Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-30510673464110495842010-09-28T01:19:24.499-05:002010-09-28T01:19:24.499-05:00And, on another point, Gråhatt said:
As for the ...And, on another point, Gråhatt said: <br /><br /><i>As for the context of an Aegean loan into Germanic and Latin, a fitting time and place would be before ca. 1600 BC at the Upper Danube. Not only is this a likely vicinity for Proto-Italic, but hence also spread an impetus to the Nordic Bronze Age in the century to come (as well as to the Lusatian culture area of the Venedi). As for the Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14665950907056264174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-65953534625742124612010-09-26T03:58:53.621-05:002010-09-26T03:58:53.621-05:00Your view is probably more comprehensive. On anoth...Your view is probably more comprehensive. On another point:<br /><br />Glossy said: <i>By the time the Germanics first appeared in the Alps, wouldn't proto-Germanic have already broken up? And wouldn't Etruscan and Rhaetic have already been largely replaced by Latin and Celtic respectively?</i><br /><br />I agree entirely and, if I remember rightly, you too Glen were convinced that the Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14665950907056264174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-5641176589741114342010-09-25T17:37:19.524-05:002010-09-25T17:37:19.524-05:00Francesco,
Great find. However, based on Fay Gli...Francesco, <br /><br />Great find. However, based on Fay Glinister's article mentioned above where she illustrates that some rites prescribed veiling while others not, this then couldn't be the complete answer. Surely if this were so, veiling could be applicable to <i>any</i> rites susceptible to the <i>evil eye</i>. In other words, all of them.<br /><br />Instead, assuming this practice Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-2133977832329699812010-09-25T01:58:42.449-05:002010-09-25T01:58:42.449-05:00I was wondering about the reason for veiling one&#...I was wondering about the reason for veiling one's head during a religious ceremony and I found an answer in a book by the Italian writer (and professional archaeologist) Valerio Massimo Manfredi ("<i>Mare greco</i>", page 154). <br /><br />Quoting Virgil's <i>Aeneid</i>: III, 403-407, he says: <br /><br />"<i>When, in Epirus, the Trojan soothsayer prophesies to Aeneas, Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14665950907056264174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-71342288229421069702010-09-14T18:44:09.640-05:002010-09-14T18:44:09.640-05:00It seems your link is bad. Let's try this: ejv...It seems your link is bad. Let's try this: <a href="http://www.ejvs.laurasianacademy.com/ejvs0501/ejvs0501article.pdf" rel="nofollow"><i>ejvs0501article.pdf</i></a>.<br /><br />Whether a loanword or a native derivation, it looks pretty secure that <a href="http://books.google.ca/books?id=QP0ZAAAAIAAJ&q=kapucchala+loanword&dq=kapucchala+loanword&hl=en&ei=aQOQTParKoennQf2ptmzDA&Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-17061620169434852352010-09-14T12:23:22.193-05:002010-09-14T12:23:22.193-05:00Maybe Indo-Aryan kapucchala- isn't linked at a...Maybe Indo-Aryan <i>kapucchala-</i> isn't linked at all. In his work on "Substrate Languages in Old Indo-Aryan" (http://www.ejvs.laurasianacademy.com/ejvs0501/ejvs0501article.pdf)M. Witzel lists /ka-/ as a typical prefix in Para-Munda loans. He doesn't list <i>kapucchala-</i>, probably because he accepts the conventional IE etymology, but a relative to the Munda words meaning &Hanshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10929065286701743522noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-43136483181779758792010-09-10T08:09:46.953-05:002010-09-10T08:09:46.953-05:00Peter, disregard my previous question on diphthong...Peter, disregard my previous question on diphthongless forms. I've managed to find the following link to <a href="http://books.google.ca/books?ei=Vy2KTO3sD5SnnQfGzuGgDA&ct=result&id=u-goAQAAIAAJ&dq=haubid+germanic&q=haubid++#search_anchor" rel="nofollow"><i>Historische Sprachforschung</i></a>. Interesting. The plot thickens.Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-21279090189937041752010-09-10T07:56:45.076-05:002010-09-10T07:56:45.076-05:00Gråhatt: "A systemic solution is preferable, ...<b>Gråhatt: <i>"A systemic solution is preferable, if possible."</i></b><br /><br />I very much agree but in this case I doubt it can be helped.<br /><br /><b><i>"The ē(²) here, as opposed to ǣ or ai, points to Etruscan creice (or Rhaetian?) as the source of borrowing, not Old Latin Graikos."</i></b><br /><br />If so, the loan would be sufficiently late because Old Etruscan <iGlen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-53928731688716989082010-09-10T07:35:42.312-05:002010-09-10T07:35:42.312-05:00Peter: "How would you explain the diphtong-le...<b>Peter: <i>"How would you explain the diphtong-less forms in Germanic?"</i></b><br /><br />Who reconstructs <b>**habidaz</b> as a valid variant, and based on <i>what attested reflexes</i>?Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-40534253517280644032010-09-10T02:42:44.123-05:002010-09-10T02:42:44.123-05:00Glen: The Etrusco-Rhaetic *p in *kaupaθ is unaspir...<b>Glen: <i>The Etrusco-Rhaetic *p in *kaupaθ is unaspirated and can sound very much like a /b/ so that isn't a problem.</i></b><br /><br />Well, Germanic turned two out of three stops into unvoiced (except through Verner’s law), and the third, voiced stop is regarded aspirated in PIE reconstruction, thus the Germanic <b>b (ƀ)</b> and <b>d (ð)</b> versus Latin <b>p</b> and <b>t</b> presents aGråhatthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15750145542777130172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-74822736329732142682010-09-10T00:40:41.642-05:002010-09-10T00:40:41.642-05:00I am not giving a PIE-reconstruction, (Heck, I am ...I am not giving a PIE-reconstruction, (Heck, I am even reconstructing *a)I am giving the late-PIE/post-PIE interpretation of a substrate-word by the pre-Germanic speakers who welcomed the word into their language (just as it made its way into the latin language). I agree that it is absurd to assume that the word existed from PIE-times onwards, so that's not what I am doing. I am just stating Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15114264892331157494noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-60520922873937456242010-09-09T21:10:28.723-05:002010-09-09T21:10:28.723-05:00Grahatt: "Starting from Aegean *káupada doesn...<b>Grahatt: <i>"Starting from Aegean *káupada doesn’t help either, as we would still get the f, not b."</i></b><br /><br />No, I'm proposing that the loan occured <i>before</i> Grimm's Law. Thus PGmc <b>*xaubidaz</b> (c.500 BCE) < PreGmc <b>*káubidaz</b> (c.1000 BCE). The Etrusco-Rhaetic <b>*p</b> in <b>*kaupaθ</b> is unaspirated and can sound very much like a /b/ so that isnGlen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-37135210305747616692010-09-09T21:03:41.846-05:002010-09-09T21:03:41.846-05:00Peter: "Therefore I agree with Kluge (and ind...<b>Peter: <i>"Therefore I agree with Kluge (and indirectly De Vaan) who say that we should build on the form *kap-ut/*kap-uet (obviously non-PIE), with a form of u-infection providing the diphtong in some Germanic forms."</i></b><br /><br />If you see that it's 'obviously non-PIE' then it's absurd to persist with a PIE reconstruction. The assumption that this word <i>Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-29988058665964065162010-09-09T15:22:01.284-05:002010-09-09T15:22:01.284-05:00Glossy: "Contacts with Rhaetic and Etruscan s...<b>Glossy: <i>"Contacts with Rhaetic and Etruscan speakers, especially in the proto-Germanic period, are more difficult to imagine."</i></b><br /><br />Fair enough, but for all we know the language may have spread out beyond the archaeological culture. In a pre-writing society, how can we honestly tell?<br /><br />Keep in mind that other suspicious examples like Etruscan <b>ais</b> Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-21496859869805538912010-09-09T05:18:55.179-05:002010-09-09T05:18:55.179-05:00Germanic *ha(u)buda- is, when compared to Latin ca...Germanic <b>*ha(u)buda-</b> is, when compared to Latin <b>caput</b>, not only subject to Grimm’s law, but also Verner’s law, which took effect before Germanic got the initial ictus. This gives us Pre-Germanic <b>*ka(u)putá-</b>, i.e. with stress on the ending. That doesn’t fit too well with an Etruscan word, if I got it right. Of course, we can hypothesize interference from Gmc <b>*hūbōn-</b> ‘Gråhatthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15750145542777130172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-10974675753046842432010-09-09T01:33:33.255-05:002010-09-09T01:33:33.255-05:00What you leave out of consideration are the differ...What you leave out of consideration are the differences between the Germanic reflexes of *haubiða. OIcel. hofuð, OE hafud point to a monophtong. For Gmc we need an explanation which takes this into account. Therefore I agree with Kluge (and indirectly De Vaan) who say that we should build on the form *kap-ut/*kap-uet (obviously non-PIE), with a form of u-infection providing the diphtong in some Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15114264892331157494noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-17841412315979237002010-09-08T12:46:06.372-05:002010-09-08T12:46:06.372-05:00I don't doubt that the Germanics had contacts ...I don't doubt that the Germanics had contacts with the Celts early on. Contacts with Rhaetic and Etruscan speakers, especially in the proto-Germanic period, are more difficult to imagine.<br /><br />I don't think it's a coincidence that Germanic runic inscriptions only start in the 2nd century BC at the very earliest. That's when the Germanics first came in contact with the Glossyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06800763146454666913noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-38811602870198775672010-09-08T07:03:44.698-05:002010-09-08T07:03:44.698-05:00PhoeniX: "You dismiss the Indic cognates"...<b>PhoeniX: <i>"You dismiss the Indic cognates"</i></b><br /><br />Damn straight I do! ;o) The primary priority of "<b>(*)*kaput</b> preachers" is to cough up VALID COGNATES justifying this root before asserting it as fact. If no valid evidence is supplied, it can't be dignified as a PIE root without indulging in unmethodological garbage.<br /><br />Lat <i>caput</i> and Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-63832655576842725262010-09-08T06:46:47.255-05:002010-09-08T06:46:47.255-05:00Glossy: "Before 500 BC the Germanics are thou...<b>Glossy: <i>"Before 500 BC the Germanics are thought to have been confined to Denmark, the south of the Scandinavian peninsula, and maybe the North Sea and Baltic coasts on either side of Denmark."</i></b><br /><br />Please prove that the Proto-Germanic language was strictly 'confined' to only those areas and nowhere else. Keep in mind that material remains say little about a Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.com