tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4569985457770997949.post5329121818222828353..comments2024-02-19T12:11:32.695+01:00Comments on Language Evolution: A Reduplication Manual for Drivers, Metalworkers, and BirdwatchersPiotr Gąsiorowskihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4569985457770997949.post-53040132248869275472016-01-09T00:39:45.067+01:002016-01-09T00:39:45.067+01:00That's right. The OED has a quotation with cuc...That's right. The OED has a quotation with <i>cuckow</i> from as late as 1797. <i>Cuckoo</i> began to appear in the 16th century.Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4569985457770997949.post-16032127417617811032016-01-08T23:52:51.306+01:002016-01-08T23:52:51.306+01:00Middle English cuccu, cokkou would have developed ...<i>Middle English </i>cuccu<i>, </i>cokkou<i> would have developed into modern [ˈkʌkoʋ]</i><br /><br />Maybe it did. This line from the OED appeared in a Languagehat comment today:<br /><br /><i>1594 Shakespeare </i>Lucrece<i> sig. G1, Why should..hatefull Kuckcowes hatch in Sparrows nests?</i>David Marjanovićhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00233722577300632805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4569985457770997949.post-65512281054293946872016-01-07T16:20:24.956+01:002016-01-07T16:20:24.956+01:00I think Greek has kykhramos as kind of partridge o...I think Greek has kykhramos as kind of partridge or quail.João Simõeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10222169018695033058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4569985457770997949.post-38134743969199727442016-01-07T15:39:56.528+01:002016-01-07T15:39:56.528+01:00I don't support "PN" more than I do ...I don't support "PN" more than I do with "PIE" (in fact, I regard the former as an enhanced version of the latter), but in this case it's quite clear we're dealing with a <i>Wanderwort</i>.Octavià Alexandrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14569731729402710400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4569985457770997949.post-88839417522040902482016-01-07T15:33:03.692+01:002016-01-07T15:33:03.692+01:00Proto-Altaic = Proto-Nostratic *g
PA *g can also ...<i>Proto-Altaic = Proto-Nostratic <b>*g</b></i><br /><br />PA <b>*g</b> can also come from PN <b>*q</b>, but that would give PIE <b>*h₂</b>.David Marjanovićhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00233722577300632805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4569985457770997949.post-608396054179376992016-01-07T15:32:38.805+01:002016-01-07T15:32:38.805+01:00Yes – if the observed *-ō really is a coloured *-e...<i>Yes – if the observed <b>*-ō</b> really is a coloured <b>*-eH</b>. It might not be; <b>*-oh₁</b> has also been suggested in this word.</i><br />I think he was referring to the initial "laryngeal".<br /><br /><i>"Exact" with unexplained metathesis, unexplained fricativization and two whole segments whose very presence is unclear?</i><br />You're right. I thought Kartvelian <b>*x</b> would correspond to IE <b>*h₃</b>, but now I see I was mistaken and it would correspond to <b>*k´</b> instead.Octavià Alexandrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14569731729402710400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4569985457770997949.post-15571940097965445522016-01-07T15:14:22.890+01:002016-01-07T15:14:22.890+01:00Doesn't it have to be h3 given the colouring i...<i>Doesn't it have to be <b>h3</b> given the colouring in Greek and Latin?</i><br />I don't think so. For example, Mallory-Adams (2006) reconstruct it that way.<br /><br /><i>.. which also shifts for some reason from the labiovelar to the palatal series</i><br />In fact, the word has an exact correspondence (including the fossilized dual suffix) in Kartvelian <b>*o(ś)tx(w)-</b> '4'. But what puzzles me is that both '4' and '8' in IE are "doubled" with regard to their external counterparts, and the former isn't reduplicated at all.<br /><br /><i>we should seriously consider the possibility that the familiar reconstruction <b>*kʷetwores</b> is not Proto-Indo-European at all but represents a “dialectal” innovation which replaced its older synonym in the common ancestor of Tocharian and the extant branches of the family.</i><br />That's right. To make a long story short, '4' would belong to the "Kurganic" layer, as other IE lexicon relative to technical innovations such as the wheel or the horse.<br /><br /><i>In the next post, I shall try to argue that an older layer of reduplicated nouns, less transparent and harder to analyse, can also be identified.</i><br />In my opinion, the numeral '8' would be one of these cases, even if it doesn't fit into the mainstream model.Octavià Alexandrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14569731729402710400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4569985457770997949.post-16362314560822101152016-01-07T15:12:09.759+01:002016-01-07T15:12:09.759+01:00As other numerals, this is most likely a Wanderwor...<i>As other numerals, this is most likely a Wanderwort.</i><br /><br />It can't easily be Nostratic inheritance in any case: Proto-Altaic = Proto-Nostratic <b>*g</b> should correspond to PIE <b>*gʰʲ/gʰ/gʰʷ</b>, and PA/PN <b>*t</b> should correspond to PIE <b>*d</b> at least according to the Moscow School. Further, PN <b>*ga</b> should become PIE <b>*gʰe</b>, not <b>gʰʷe</b> with labialization out of nowhere.<br /><br /><i>Doesn't it have to be h3 given the colouring in Greek and Latin?</i><br /><br />Yes – if the observed <b>*-ō</b> really is a coloured <b>*-eH</b>. It might not be; <b>*-oh₁</b> has also been suggested in this word.<br /><br /><i>the word has an exact correspondence (including the fossilized dual suffix) in Kartvelian <b>*o(ś)tx(w)-</b></i><br /><br />"Exact" with unexplained metathesis, unexplained fricativization and two whole segments whose very presence is unclear?David Marjanovićhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00233722577300632805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4569985457770997949.post-52229701111166298282016-01-07T15:07:27.395+01:002016-01-07T15:07:27.395+01:00It's an interesting idea, certailny worth purs...It's an interesting idea, certailny worth pursuing. In Indo-Iranian the root meaning is 'hide, cover, keep secret'; Lith. <i>-gū͂žti</i> could be glossed 'take under one's wings' (also literally, of birds) or 'hide (intrans.), lie in wait', dependind on the prefix it takes. See also Ved. <i>guh-, góha-</i> 'hiding-place, lair', <i>gúhā</i> 'cave, cavern', and Lith. <i>gužtà</i> 'nest'. But the semantic distance between playing hide-and-seek and deceiving is narrow, and certainly the meaning 'fool, dupe' is often associated with the Germanic 'cuckoo' words.<br /><br />Guus Kroonen proposes other Germanic derivatives of *<b>gʰeuǵʰ-</b>: *gʰóuǵʰ-mo-s > *ɣaumaz 'heed, attention' (ON <i>gaumr</i>, MDu. <i>goom</i>), requiring somewhat different semantics ('guard, protect', closer to the Baltic development). My derivation of *<b>ɣaukaz</b> would of course have to involve Kluge's Law: *<b>gʰouǵʰ-nó-</b> > PGmc. *<b>ɣau(k)ka-</b> -- I'm pretty sure Guus would like it.Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4569985457770997949.post-20696401521087169102016-01-07T13:24:34.360+01:002016-01-07T13:24:34.360+01:00Dear Piotr,
Yet again an interesting and valuabl...Dear Piotr, <br /><br />Yet again an interesting and valuable piece.<br /><br />Linking the cuckoo words with <strong>*gʰeuǵʰ-</strong> ‘to hide’ indeed seems to be better than regarding them as onomatopoeic. This particular issue prompted me to write a post yesterday – with acknowledgment, of course. In it I offer and prefer a third option with regard to the semantic motivation behind <em>*gaukaz</em>.<br /><br />Considering some of the Germanic derivations of this root, like Old Norse <em>gýgr</em> ‘giantess’, Old Danish <em>gyg</em> ‘onderground one’, <em>gyger</em> ‘murderer, robber’ and Norwegian <em>gygr, jyvr, gjøger</em> ‘witch’, and more importantly West-Germanic <em>*gaugalōn-/*gaukalōn-</em> ‘to do (magic) tricks’ (whence Old High German <em>gougolon, goukelon</em>, Middle Dutch <em>gokelen</em>, Dutch <em>goochelen</em>), Middle Dutch <em>goken</em> ‘to deceive, to fool’, obsolete Dutch <em>guig/guich</em> ‘something strange, crazy; mockery’ and Dutch <em>guichelheil</em> ‘pimpernel’ (lit. ‘madness-cure’), the root seems to have extended/shifted its semantic field to ‘to deceive, trick, fool’ (and beyond) rather early. Therefore I would prefer to think Old Germanic <em>*gaukaz</em> referred primarily to the deceiving ways of the cuckoo, rather than its hiding. Though of course, the two concepts remain inextricably linked.<br /><br />What do you think?<br /><br />- OlivierAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4569985457770997949.post-79041650290352432262016-01-07T08:31:19.643+01:002016-01-07T08:31:19.643+01:00The 'little furry animal' word is more lik...The 'little furry animal' word is more likely a full reduplication (see <a href="http://languagehat.com/geas/#comment-1121158" rel="nofollow">this Language Hat thread</a>, where cuckoos are also discussed).<br /><br /><i>Nimbus</i> could reflect metathesised *<b>nebʰ-no-</b> (as in <i>fundus</i>), though *<b>nambV-</b> 'moisture, dampness' is common in the Iranian languages, which also have traces of *<b>nab-</b> as a verb root, so I wouldn't exclude *<b>né-nbʰ-o-</b>.Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4569985457770997949.post-73252113747212011672016-01-07T03:04:47.501+01:002016-01-07T03:04:47.501+01:00And I'd add Latin nimbus < *ne-nbH-o- and m...And I'd add Latin nimbus < *ne-nbH-o- and maybe viverra < *we-wr-?João Simõeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10222169018695033058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4569985457770997949.post-11955646240300838102016-01-07T01:12:21.185+01:002016-01-07T01:12:21.185+01:00We have it in Slavic too: Pol. cietrzew, Russ. tét...We have it in Slavic too: Pol. <i>cietrzew</i>, Russ. <i>téterev</i>, Czech <i>tetřev</i>, etc. < Proto-Slavic *<b>tetervь</b> 'black grouse'. The full grade of the base in Balto-Slavic is interesting. I'll have to look at it more closely.Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4569985457770997949.post-42911784462365103562016-01-06T23:34:25.103+01:002016-01-06T23:34:25.103+01:00Reduplications?
a)Greek tetrax, tetraon, tetraion,...Reduplications?<br />a)Greek tetrax, tetraon, tetraion, tatyras, "black cock, wild cock", tetaros "pheasant", tityros, Lit. tetervas, ON thiDurr, Sansk. tittiras < PIE *tetr(w)-?<br />b) Latin cico:nia "stork" < *kek-<br />c) Latin tetricus <*tetr-João Simõeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10222169018695033058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4569985457770997949.post-73011071995254449032016-01-06T21:31:34.679+01:002016-01-06T21:31:34.679+01:00That's my opinion too. The strongest point of ...That's my opinion too. The strongest point of the glottalic theory is its explanation of the missing *<b>b</b>, but, to quote Fortson (2010: 60), "...the statistical frequency of a sound does not necessarily indicate anything about that sound's history." One has to consider the total evidence, not just the bits that seem to support one's pet theory.Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4569985457770997949.post-3948828973688891532016-01-06T20:46:49.366+01:002016-01-06T20:46:49.366+01:00Do you find those convincing? Clackson calls the W...Do you find those convincing? Clackson calls the Winter's Law explanation ingenious, but says, "All the long vowels in the words under discussion can all be explained in other ways, not reliant on the glottal theory."Boinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07484266186870195043noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4569985457770997949.post-60673967279316137432016-01-06T19:55:19.589+01:002016-01-06T19:55:19.589+01:00As Kortlandt himself puts it in the article refere...As Kortlandt himself puts it in the <a href="https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/1877/344_043.pdf" rel="nofollow">article</a> referenced by Garnier, "the buccal features of the initial consonant [of the cluster] were lost while its glottalic feature merged with the reflex of the PIE laryngeal *<i>H₁</i>." There are similar Leiden School explanations for Lachmann's Law in Latin and Winter's Law in Balto-Slavic. Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4569985457770997949.post-59552353337784551062016-01-06T18:45:11.761+01:002016-01-06T18:45:11.761+01:00"IE *Hok´te-h₃(u) '8' (where H stands..."IE *Hok´te-h₃(u) '8' (where H stands for an unspecified "laryngeal")"<br /><br />Doesn't it have to be h3 given the colouring in Greek and Latin?<br /><br />And now you have the reduplicated consonant leniting, rather than the root consonant... which also shifts for some reason from the labiovelar to the palatal series. Plus shouldn't the dual plural be -eh1?<br />Boinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07484266186870195043noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4569985457770997949.post-61201038708994751202016-01-06T18:21:54.045+01:002016-01-06T18:21:54.045+01:00Do you mean they're assuming that h1 was a glo...Do you mean they're assuming that h1 was a glottal stop, and therefore a natural transition between some sort of preglottalised /?t/ and zero?Boinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07484266186870195043noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4569985457770997949.post-17738984861562845702016-01-06T18:01:19.382+01:002016-01-06T18:01:19.382+01:00Well, they see it all in the light of the "Gl...Well, they see it all in the light of the "Glottalic Theory". The presence of *<b>h₁</b> is harder to establish than that of the other laryngeals (no colouring, no high-vowel breaking, just a lengthening effect).Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4569985457770997949.post-11755639872870404432016-01-06T17:52:34.351+01:002016-01-06T17:52:34.351+01:00My French is a bit ropey these days, but I don'...My French is a bit ropey these days, but I don't get why he or Kortland need to reconstruct the *-h1- stage. Why can't they just postulate the /d/ being lost with compensatory lengthening? Boinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07484266186870195043noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4569985457770997949.post-65027350393372341302016-01-06T17:21:25.295+01:002016-01-06T17:21:25.295+01:00I almost forgot another interesting case of redupl...I almost forgot another interesting case of reduplication already mentioned in this <a href="http://langevo.blogspot.com.es/2014/10/two-is-company-four-is-party.html" rel="nofollow">blog</a>: from <b>*kʷet-</b> 'to group into pairs' (a fossilized verb lexeme) we've got Lithuanian <b>kek(e)tà</b> 'detachment, flock', Uralic <b>*kakta ~ *kæktæ</b> '2', Altaic <b>*gàgtà</b> 'one of a pair' and IE <b>*Hok´te-h₃(u)</b> '8' (where <b>H</b> stands for an unspecified "laryngeal"), a fossilized dual (2x4=8). As other numerals, this is most likely a Wanderwort. <br /><br />Octavià Alexandrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14569731729402710400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4569985457770997949.post-38802088103119759412016-01-06T12:25:38.533+01:002016-01-06T12:25:38.533+01:00I like it. I could even use it to support my analy...I like it. I could even use it to support my analysis of *<b>gʷih₃wó-</b> as an obscured reduplication (*<b>gʷi-g[ʷ]w-ó-</b>).Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4569985457770997949.post-7665897030343932572016-01-06T12:12:05.101+01:002016-01-06T12:12:05.101+01:00It probably is a Northernism (or, less probabbly, ...It probably <i>is</i> a Northernism (or, less probabbly, secondary contamination with <i>cuckoo</i>). All pronunciation dictionaries give [ˈkʌkəld ~ ˈkʌkoʊld] for British and American English alike.<br /><br />http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/cuckold<br />http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/cuckold<br />http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cuckold<br />https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cuckold#Pronunciation<br /><br />etc.Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4569985457770997949.post-88291626194093621342016-01-06T10:06:27.951+01:002016-01-06T10:06:27.951+01:00Romain Garnier, in the following Glotta article:
...Romain Garnier, in the following Glotta article:<br /><br />https://www.academia.edu/1922376/_Nouvelles_consid%C3%A9rations_sur_leffet-Kortlandt_<br /><br />has analysed δῆρις 'querelle' as an ancient reduplicated noun *dḗr-i-(< *dé-h1r-i- < *dé-dr-i- < *dé-dr(H)-i<br /><br />What do you think of this idea? (this would be a type slightly distinct from the one you have been discussing in this series of posts).Guillaume Jacqueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00057915086735521613noreply@blogger.com