tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post6079844173179560863..comments2023-09-24T05:45:23.811-05:00Comments on Paleoglot: Enticed by a drunken thoughtGlen Gordonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comBlogger32125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-55004411068134019012008-02-26T15:27:00.000-06:002008-02-26T15:27:00.000-06:00Apologies, I wrote "Semitic triliteral *[ḫdy]", an...Apologies, I wrote "Semitic triliteral <B>*[ḫdy]</B>", and that should be <B>*[ḫdʔ]</B> instead (that is, according to <A HREF="http://books.google.ca/books?id=vvmK0eh4WF8C&pg=PA227&dq=hd%27+akkadian+gladdening&sig=_eS0XcwMX7mUsC4DgnXyG-YBrU8" REL="nofollow">Richardson, Hammurabi's Laws: Text, Translation and Glossary (2004), p.227</A>).Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-58942663397334535242008-02-26T10:31:00.000-06:002008-02-26T10:31:00.000-06:00Okay, let's get hardcore logical now.Zythophile: "...Okay, let's get hardcore logical now.<BR/><BR/><B>Zythophile: <I>"To quote the OED on 'wine', 'the nature of the connexion of the Indo-Eur. words with the Semitic [...] is disputed.' Nobody that I can find suggests one comes from the other, in either direction."</I></B><BR/><BR/>Objections: <A HREF="http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum%20ad%20ignorantiam" REL="nofollow">Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-17257992475743590812008-02-26T07:15:00.000-06:002008-02-26T07:15:00.000-06:00Oh dear. You're obviously ignorant of PIE *woino- ...<I>Oh dear. You're obviously ignorant of PIE *woino- and Semitic *waynu-, both meaning "wine". </I><BR/><BR/>Oh dear yourself. To quote the OED on "wine", "the nature of the connexion of the Indo-Eur. words with the Semitic (Arab., Ethiopic wain, Hebrew yayin, Assyrian înu) is disputed." Nobody that I can find suggests one comes from the other, in either direction. So, the answer to the question Zythophilehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07169961035352165436noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-14965499178454151762008-02-22T14:46:00.000-06:002008-02-22T14:46:00.000-06:00I was going to thrash you out for this **ekwo-meyd...I was going to thrash you out for this <B>**ekwo-meydho</B> nonsense until I noticed that <B>*ekwo-meydho-</B> (with hyphen properly placed at the end) is indeed reconstructed by some like Puhvel, but not without controversy. It's however based on <I>aśvamedha</I> (not <I>*asvamedh</I>), a ritual assumed by some to be dated to Indo-European times. Nonetheless, in such a form, it can have nothing Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-49620244533124788052008-02-22T08:35:00.000-06:002008-02-22T08:35:00.000-06:00Zythophile, I see that in your self-admitted ignor...Zythophile, I see that in your self-admitted ignorance you are far too eager to assume answers to your own questions. Your inability to understand that <B>*mad-</B> and <B>*medhu-</B> cannot be related by known PIE morphology is not my concern and it's also not my concern that you think some reference you fail to cite claims <B>**meydho</B> instead. Logic? You're evidently lacking in it right nowGlen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-80805373228990424132008-02-21T19:48:00.000-06:002008-02-21T19:48:00.000-06:00Now, Glen, you know very well that finding a like-...Now, Glen, you know very well that finding a like-sounding word in language B that has a vague semantic link to the target word in language A and claiming therefore that language A's word is derived from language B's word is just the sort of stuff you criticise people for when they do it in Etruscan.<BR/><BR/>Your thesis needs to answer many more questions. For example:<BR/><BR/><I>Is there Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-44912569910728846362008-02-20T12:32:00.000-06:002008-02-20T12:32:00.000-06:00"So, if you're going to wield the trusty razor of ...<B>"So, if you're going to wield the trusty razor of William of Ockham, it seems to me that deriving *mad from *médhu- takes far less of a leap than deriving it from Akkadian muḫaddū ..."</B><BR/><BR/>Since <B>*d</B> and <B>*dh</B> are proven to be "distinct phonemes", the connection between the two roots is thus shown to be false. So far, no one has shown so conclusively that the connection Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-25835031376581707572008-02-20T11:41:00.000-06:002008-02-20T11:41:00.000-06:00When I say I'm an ignorant git, it's not so much b...When I say I'm an ignorant git, it's not so much bad self-talk as a declaration that I know effectively zero about linguistics, and I'm therefore in no real position to cross swords with you about whether *dh and *d can be switched around.<BR/><BR/>I think your argument about a Semitic origin for the *mad "drunk" words is an interesting challenge to the orthodoxy, and one worth making, especiallyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-560455620516870542008-02-20T07:45:00.000-06:002008-02-20T07:45:00.000-06:00Oh, and of course, MIE *áma is a suggestion based ...Oh, and of course, MIE <B>*áma</B> is a suggestion based on <B>*máh₂ter-</B> since if <B>*-h₂ter-</B> is a late innovation, naturally the basis for this late formation of 'mother', namely the nursery syllable <B>*ma</B>, logically predates it.Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-9847450920144909172008-02-20T07:42:00.000-06:002008-02-20T07:42:00.000-06:00The Hittite word annas 'mother' is apparently an A...The Hittite word <I>annas</I> 'mother' is apparently <A HREF="http://books.google.ca/books?id=kghtOX_crPMC&pg=PA85&vq=%22hanna-belongs+to+the+same+group+of+words+as+anna-%22&dq=&source=gbs_search_s&sig=uIGEcies-ur_JxnUjFDpGOCaV0M" REL="nofollow">an Anatolian innovation</A>. As for where my MIE <B>*áta-sa</B> comes from, well, behold <A HREF="http://books.google.ca/books?id=seYlebN1UcgC&pg=PA145&Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-8469799947743315222008-02-19T19:36:00.000-06:002008-02-19T19:36:00.000-06:00Where do you get "MIE *áta-sa 'father', *áma-sa 'm...<I>Where do you get "MIE *áta-sa 'father', *áma-sa 'mother'" from? External comparison?</I><BR/><BR/>I'm guessing from Hittite anna- and atta-. <BR/><BR/>Though ama shouldn't give anna as as far as I know.<BR/><BR/>So I'd love to hear what Glen has to say on thisAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-55175007106006773412008-02-19T17:05:00.000-06:002008-02-19T17:05:00.000-06:00By the tone in your response, I think you can see ...<I>By the tone in your response, I think you can see how unlikely that is for yourself. As you admit, /mχ-/ is an exceptionally odd onset for any language, so your suggestion is dismissable on those grounds alone.</I><BR/><BR/>Sorry for not being clearer. By "then" I didn't even mean several generations. What if the simplification happened during the borrowing, rather than later? What if the Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-37360616203621934742008-02-19T16:43:00.000-06:002008-02-19T16:43:00.000-06:00zythophile: "I'm just an ignorant git here, lingui...<B>zythophile: <I>"I'm just an ignorant git here, linguistically[...]"</I></B><BR/><BR/>Hey, cheer up! We're all ignorant gits in something or another :) Let go of the bad self-talk.<BR/><BR/><B>zythophile: <I>"[...] I was under the impression that the etymology of the *mad- words for "drunk" [...] was pretty well established as tied to the words for honey and mead [...]"</I></B><BR/><BR/>Both <BGlen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-65941058467897963882008-02-19T15:45:00.000-06:002008-02-19T15:45:00.000-06:00I'm just an ignorant git here, linguistically, but...I'm just an ignorant git here, linguistically, but I was under the impression that the etymology of the *mad- words for "drunk" (which go right through to Welsh - <I>meddw</I>) was pretty well established as tied to the words for honey and mead (which latter word, in Welsh, is <I>medd</I>) I find it more likely the PIEs knew about fermenting honey than they picked up the idea of "causing joy" Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-23491558626241085802008-02-19T11:05:00.000-06:002008-02-19T11:05:00.000-06:00Rob: "I don't understand. The same processes shoul...<B>Rob: <I>"I don't understand. The same processes should have caused Paradigmatic Strengthening in *all roots*, including the root in the word for "father". Obviously that is not what we see here."</I></B><BR/><BR/>No. I maintain that this root postdates Syncope by a few centuries and never existed before the height of the Late IE Period. To reiterate my view, none of the forms of PIE kinship Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-75162259761147209952008-02-19T09:04:00.000-06:002008-02-19T09:04:00.000-06:00Glen: "That would be because it's more recent. Eve...<B>Glen: <I>"That would be because it's more recent. Ever since Syncope, full/zero ablaut remained productive. So if this word for "father" were coined, say, in the middle of the Late Period from the verb *peh₂- plus the agentive *-tér- and literally meaning 'protector, provider', then *ph₂tér- would be the result (with zerograde present in the word from the beginning)."</I></B><BR/><BR/>I don't Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04877359715103710249noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-11238914167688216182008-02-19T08:31:00.000-06:002008-02-19T08:31:00.000-06:00And don't worry about nitpicking here, David. It's...And don't worry about nitpicking here, David. It's good to be precise and clear about what we mean.Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-51590706526398580942008-02-19T07:20:00.000-06:002008-02-19T07:20:00.000-06:00David: "Can't the Semitic /muχadːuː/ [...] have be...<B>David: <I>"Can't the Semitic /muχadːuː/ [...] have been misunderstood as /mχadu/, been borrowed as such directly into PIE [...] and then [...] the phonotactically forbidden [...] /mχ/ cluster was simplified to /m/, yielding a nice PIE root with two consonants and one vowel in between?"</I></B><BR/><BR/>By the tone in your response, I think you can see how unlikely that is for yourself. As you Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-61798333443823135432008-02-19T07:09:00.000-06:002008-02-19T07:09:00.000-06:00(I see you've already approved my first comment. N...(I see you've already approved my first comment. Not that it matters, but I deliberately wrote χ rather than x: the Semitic ḫ is most commonly uvular rather than velar, though I'm told it varies within Arabic, and the uvular voiceless fricative seems to be the <I>marginally</I> most parsimonious interpretation for the sound of PIE *h2. But in neither case are we dealing with a /χ/-/x/ contrast, Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-79126639918454701962008-02-19T06:58:00.000-06:002008-02-19T06:58:00.000-06:00Interesting idea about where *-/h2ter/ comes from!...Interesting idea about where *-/h2ter/ comes from!<BR/><BR/>Sorry I still haven't sent you the EDAL preface or answered any of your replies to my comments. I had less time than expected last weekend, and I didn't find your e-mail address. (I thought you had commented on the Wikipedia article on the laryngeal theory, but, although he makes your arguments about the PIE *ḱ *k *kʷ triad, he's called Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-36564410518862211552008-02-19T06:34:00.000-06:002008-02-19T06:34:00.000-06:00Interesting.But do we need any Pre-PIE reconstruct...Interesting.<BR/><BR/>But do we need any Pre-PIE reconstructions for this? Can't the Semitic /muχadːuː/ -- am I right in assuming the stress is on the 2nd syllable? -- have been misunderstood as /mχadu/, been borrowed as such directly into PIE (as opposed to Pre-PIE), and then (very quickly, I imagine) the phonotactically forbidden (and cross-linguistically rare!) /mχ/ cluster was simplified to /Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-4481365561032968242008-02-19T03:31:00.000-06:002008-02-19T03:31:00.000-06:00you almost had me there but(...)Meh, too bad. That...<EM>you almost had me there but(...)</EM><BR/>Meh, too bad. That would've been a fun exception. I suppose renaming it to /O/ just made more sense for someone then...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-71494479521756246292008-02-18T19:08:00.000-06:002008-02-18T19:08:00.000-06:00Rob: "Now I have a question about this 'Paradigmat...<B>Rob: <I>"Now I have a question about this 'Paradigmatic Strengthening' of yours. Why don't we see it in forms like *ph₂trós 'father's'?"</I></B><BR/><BR/>That would be because it's more recent. Ever since Syncope, full/zero ablaut remained productive. So if this word for "father" were coined, say, in the middle of the Late Period from the verb <B>*peh₂-</B> plus the agentive <B>*-tér-</B> and Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-80196412931143242792008-02-18T18:07:00.000-06:002008-02-18T18:07:00.000-06:00Okay, so they remain separate phones when stressed...Okay, so they remain separate phones when stressed. That seems more reasonable.<BR/><BR/>Now I have a question about this "Paradigmatic Strengthening" of yours. Why don't we see it in forms like <B>*ph₂trós</B> "father's"?<BR/><BR/>Also, what do you think was the root vowel for "foot" before Syncope and Paradigmatic Strengthening?<BR/><BR/>- RobRobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04877359715103710249noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-63656967130366847602008-02-18T17:17:00.000-06:002008-02-18T17:17:00.000-06:00Tropylium: "There appears to be an Algonquin langu...<B>Tropylium: <I>"There appears to be an Algonquin language called Arapaho with no /a/ whatsover, just /i e O u/... tho going by your "how not to reconstruct a proto-language" article I'm not sure if you count one-off weirdities here... (Or trust anything off Wikipedia, for that matter.)"</I></B><BR/><BR/>Wow, hehe, you almost had me there but... <A HREF="http://books.google.ca/books?id=Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.com