Proto-Indo-European Lexicon

[Octaviano]

Don't waste your times on this Octaviano guy, he is not going to listen to reason. And when you refuse to believe him, he'll start insulting you.

You're mistaken, phoenix. I listen to everyone, even to people who makes personal attacks on me (I've been receiving all sorts of them here).

[Octaviano]

That's only evidence if we already agree with you that the PIE speaking people were from the mesolithic, but you have already seen the objections to that. Prove to us that they are from PNC and went into PIE with out making these assumptions, or else no one is going to believe you let alone take you seriously (which I doubt we do right now).

I understand your skeptical position.

If I'm not mistaken, Starostin's PNC is dated around 3,000 BC. Proto-Vasco-Caucasian (which hasn't yet been reconstructed but which would also include Basque and other extinct languages) pushes this date further back in the Neolithic (my own scenario is more or less like Renfrew's).

If all these matches are real, then it would mean PIE received a huge amount of Vasco-Caucasian loanwords in the Neolithic. This would mean that earlier IE speakers had a Mesolithic economy and then shifted to Neolithic when in contact (I suppose in the Low Danube area) with their neighbouring Vasco-Caucasian-speaking farmers, that is, were aculturated by them.

As this might sound highly speculative, it looks to me as the most reasonable explantion. I agree with you that the maximum possible amount of data should be gathered in support of this theory. I'm working on that.

[Morrígan]

Hey, guy! Didn't somebody teach you to be polite?

This is a blatant thread hijack. If you want to discuss this, start a thread on the subject.

You're mistaken, phoenix. I listen to everyone, even to people who makes personal attacks on me (I've been receiving all sorts of them here).

You've also been making them, and you have been demonstrating a combative attitude.

This is a thread about the lexicon I spent months compiling so that people could comment on any apparent errors in either my compilation, transcription, or possibly in the source material.

Unless you want to look for encoding errors in the file, take this discussion of loans into PIE into another thread.

[Octaviano]

This is a thread about the lexicon I spent months compiling so that people could comment on any apparent errors in either my compilation, transcription, or possibly in the source material.

Unless you want to look for encoding errors in the file, take this discussion of loans into PIE into another thread.

OK. Then I'll point to you that PIE *retH2- 'to run' ~ *rótH2o/eHa- 'wheel' are listed separately when they're two variants of the same root with different Ablaut. Even the comment column is partly duplicated on both entries.

Although I've got my own copy of Mallory & Adams, I thank you for the file.

[Colzie]

This is a thread about the lexicon I spent months compiling so that people could comment on any apparent errors in either my compilation, transcription, or possibly in the source material.

Unless you want to look for encoding errors in the file, take this discussion of loans into PIE into another thread.

On that topic, this database looks marvelous, and I will be perusing it for my own project. I'll let you know if I spot any problems as I go through it. Thanks for posting.

[Etherman]

I notice that you have a number of words with long vowels and no accompanying laryngeals. Is this because some sources don't reconstruct laryngeals, or is it because original long vowels are being reconstructed?

[Morrígan]

I notice that you have a number of words with long vowels and no accompanying laryngeals. Is this because some sources don't reconstruct laryngeals, or is it because original long vowels are being reconstructed?

Well, there are a few words with *ā
*ālu- '± esculent root'
*ānos 'circle, ring'
*bʰāǵʰus '(fore)arm, foreleg'
*gʷādʰ- 'dive'
*ḱāpos 'piece of land, garden'
*kāru- 'poet'
*māk- 'press'
*tāg- ?*tag- 'set in place, arrange'

though I'm not sure why Mallory and Adams don't reconstructing them as *ehₐ. M&A also have *ū in a few places, though Beekes has *uH in many, if not most of those roots.

[alice]

Hey, guy! Didn't somebody teach you to be polite?

This is a blatant thread hijack. If you want to discuss this, start a thread on the subject.

(snip)

Unless you want to look for encoding errors in the file, take this discussion of loans into PIE into another thread.

I've done this for him:

http://www.spinnoff.com/zbb/viewtopic.php?t=33663

Oh, and back on topic, I found the spreadsheet very useful, too.

[gsandi]

The whole edifice of the Kurgan theory (to give it one of its names) relies on the reconstruction of a common vocabulary of cultural, technological and biological vocabulary, which can then be compared with archaeological finds.

Yes, I know most Indo-Europeanists adhere to it because of convenience.

Have you conducted an opinion survey of Indo-Europeanists?

I personally adhere to it because it best fits the facts. In my mind of course. Different minds, different conclusions.

You don't have to accept this approach, but then you can't call upon the tools of comparative linguistics to support any other hypothesis. If you cannot accept PIE reconstructions of *ekwos 'horse', *kwekwlos 'wheel' and *bhâgos 'beech tree', there is no reason why I should accept any other reconstructions you may have left in place to justify your pet theories.

The "tools of comparative linguistics" you mentioned not only include internal reconstruction but also external comparison. And the latter shows many of these reconstructed PIE roots were borrowed from other languages.

For example, the root *kWekWlo- is a Wanderwort also found in PNC *hw@:lkwe: 'carriage, vehicle'.

]

What is PNC? How do you know that PNC (whatever it is) didn't borrow it from PIE?

Your expression "pet theory" is a boomerang one, because it can also be applied to the so-called Kurgan theory, based upon the model of an auto-sufficient, isolated PIE coined by neogrammarians in the 19th century.

Actually, no, the Kurgan theory was developed not by a linguist but by an archaeologist, Marija Gimbutas. My use of the term is broader, which is why I said I use this name for convenience - I simply mean that I place PIE in the North Pontic area, somewhere in the 5th (early 4th?) millennium BC (even there, possibly excluding Proto-Anatolian which may have split off earlier).

I am not aware of any serious linguist today sticking to whatever the neogrammarians said, although I doubt that they were as limited in their thinking as you seem to imply.

And of course you can apply any term whatsoever to any theory you don't like. What I meant with my "pet theory" comment is that if your (not generally accepted) theory disregards some of the key reconstructions of modern comparative linguists regarding PIE, you cannot then go back to the use of other PIE reconstructions to justify your theories.

I reconstruct PIE *ekwos to mean 'horse', wild or domesticated. Because it was in PIE, I imagine that PIE speakers were familiar with the animal - since the National Geographic Channel, publicising exotic animals, did not exist at the time. From archeological data we have a pretty good idea as to where and when horses existed in prehistoric Europe, and any place that had no horses can then be excluded as a place where PIE was spoken.

Now, you can dispute this argumentation by saying that the word *ekwos (and all the other words pointing at a bronze-age, animal-herding culture) spread though IE territory significantly later than PIE - OK, but then this argument will go for any reconstruction you may posit. We cannot then speak of a core vocabulary for PIE, in fact we may as well not speak about PIE at all, and the whole model falls to pieces.

21th century's historical linguistics has more ambitious goals and demands a wider, multi-disciplinary framework.

All in 10 years? Vow!

Would you like me to list the relevant books and articles on archaeology, history and genetics in my collection?

[Octaviano]

I answer this post on the other thread.

[Kereb]

Bumping this cause I'm linking to it from elsewhere. Also huge thanks to TheGoatMan for putting this together.

[JounaPyysalo]

Good day to all.

I am Dr Jouna Pyysalo, the responsible research investigator of PIE Lexicon, the generative etymological dictionary of Indo-European languages.

Please visit
http://pielexicon.hum.helsinki.fi
and familiarize yourselves with our brand-new product.

All comments are the most welcome,

Jouna

[marconatrix]

All comments are the most welcome,
Jouna

OI Bárach (usually arna mbárach 'on the morrow').

You've missed the Common Celtic change of /ō/ > /ā/ (or in final syllables /ū/). This parallels /ē/ > /ī/, which means that CC had no long mid vowels, only /ī ā ū/.

The Irish breaking of /ō/ > /ua/, /ē/ > /ia/ only applies to secondary long vowels, i.e. vowels produced by compensatory lengthening, smoothing of diphthongs and similar processes within Irish.

In short, replace your change (5) by /ō/ > /ā/.

-------------

MidIr. Aisel ~ -il. Both are recorded. The first appears to be the regular development, the second probably due to the dative being generalised, this is not uncommon. See :

http://edil.qub.ac.uk/dictionary/result ... =edil_2012

------------

OI daimi-. The word you want here is possibly the more basic dám /dāμ/ :

http://edil.qub.ac.uk/dictionary/result ... =edil_2012
(scroll down).

The /ā/ is long, although not always marked. Lengthened by the following 'laryngeal' ?
I.e. you would derive it from the same starting point as Lat. domā, RV. dāmā, conventionally /d[o|e]h₂mah₂/ (I think?)

[Abi]

OP's link no longer works. Any mirror?

[KathTheDragon]

None that I know of. I have it, though, so if she's ok with it, I can reupload it.

[Ser]

The LCS have put it online, in various formats even. See? Their stuff is sometimes useful.

http://library.conlang.org/web/lingon.html

See the entry for "PIE Lexicon".

[Zju]

The LCS have put it online, in various formats even. See? Their stuff is sometimes useful.

http://library.conlang.org/web/lingon.html

See the entry for "PIE Lexicon".

So the word for 'towards' is *(h₃)bʰi. Surely some people have already noticed its similarity with the athematic instrumental endings, haven't they? Has anyone proposed that word as a possible origin of a case ending?

*(h₁)uper(i) 'over, above' and *(h₁)upo 'under' seem related - is there any derivational suffix *-er attested?

[KathTheDragon]

The LCS have put it online, in various formats even. See? Their stuff is sometimes useful.

http://library.conlang.org/web/lingon.html

See the entry for "PIE Lexicon".

So the word for 'towards' is *(h₃)bʰi. Surely some people have already noticed its similarity with the athematic instrumental endings, haven't they? Has anyone proposed that word as a possible origin of a case ending?

*(h₁)uper(i) 'over, above' and *(h₁)upo 'under' seem related - is there any derivational suffix *-er attested?

In a manner of speaking, and yes, normally found as the augmented *-(t)eros, the "contrastive" suffix. Note that *(h₁)upo is an allative to a root noun (or at least analogical on such allatives; the normal fate outside of Anatolian was adverbs, and thence adpositions)

[JounaPyysalo]

All comments are the most welcome,
Jouna

OI Bárach (usually arna mbárach 'on the morrow').

You've missed the Common Celtic change of /ō/ > /ā/ (or in final syllables /ū/). This parallels /ē/ > /ī/, which means that CC had no long mid vowels, only /ī ā ū/.

The Irish breaking of /ō/ > /ua/, /ē/ > /ia/ only applies to secondary long vowels, i.e. vowels produced by compensatory lengthening, smoothing of diphthongs and similar processes within Irish.

In short, replace your change (5) by /ō/ > /ā/.

JOUNA: Yes, Marconatrix, very well done again: I mentioned this briefly on PIE FB-group, but haven't had the time to upgrade the sound law scripts as of yet.

-------------

MidIr. Aisel ~ -il. Both are recorded. The first appears to be the regular development, the second probably due to the dative being generalised, this is not uncommon. See :

http://edil.qub.ac.uk/dictionary/result ... =edil_2012

JOUNA: Thank you very much! I was a helpless with regard to the aisil without means to provide a regular that would not cause inconsistency in the process.

------------

OI daimi-. The word you want here is possibly the more basic dám /dāμ/ :

http://edil.qub.ac.uk/dictionary/result ... =edil_2012
(scroll down).

JOUNA: This item can be added yes, but it is different. The DIL lemma daimid pr. i. ACT.-pres. ind. 3 sg. damuid, -daim is meant

The /ā/ is long, although not always marked. Lengthened by the following 'laryngeal' ?
I.e. you would derive it from the same starting point as Lat. domā, RV. dāmā, conventionally /d[o|e]h₂mah₂/ (I think?)

JOUNA: No. PIE had no compensatory lengthening (à la Saussure). Instead PIE *eɑh (= eh2) yielded OIr. a, Lat. a, Skt. a, etc. Only lengthening caused by the "laryngeal" is in the open syllable of Indo-Iranian where *oHCV yields the long vowel /ā/. Cf. PIE *doɑɦmḗɑh- -> RV. dāmā́-.

Generally thank you again, Marconatrix for your very pro comments.

[JounaPyysalo]

The LCS have put it online, in various formats even. See? Their stuff is sometimes useful.

http://library.conlang.org/web/lingon.html

See the entry for "PIE Lexicon".

So the word for 'towards' is *(h₃)bʰi. Surely some people have already noticed its similarity with the athematic instrumental endings, haven't they? Has anyone proposed that word as a possible origin of a case ending?

*(h₁)uper(i) 'over, above' and *(h₁)upo 'under' seem related - is there any derivational suffix *-er attested?

In a manner of speaking, and yes, normally found as the augmented *-(t)eros, the "contrastive" suffix. Note that *(h₁)upo is an allative to a root noun (or at least analogical on such allatives; the normal fate outside of Anatolian was adverbs, and thence adpositions)

JOUNA: Note that the PIE Lexicon quoted there is not the PIE Lexicon in
http://pielexicon.hum.helsinki.fi/?alpha=ALL

[JounaPyysalo]

MARCONATRIX WROTE: MidIr. Aisel ~ -il. Both are recorded. The first appears to be the regular development, the second probably due to the dative being generalised, this is not uncommon."
JOUNA: I now reposted the site having opted MidIr. aisel as the regular form – and the red is automatically removed, as it should.

Thank you for the cooperation, the mistake was mine as I simply passed forth MidIr. asil aisil without checking the attestations.

[KathTheDragon]

The LCS have put it online, in various formats even. See? Their stuff is sometimes useful.

http://library.conlang.org/web/lingon.html

See the entry for "PIE Lexicon".

So the word for 'towards' is *(h₃)bʰi. Surely some people have already noticed its similarity with the athematic instrumental endings, haven't they? Has anyone proposed that word as a possible origin of a case ending?

*(h₁)uper(i) 'over, above' and *(h₁)upo 'under' seem related - is there any derivational suffix *-er attested?

In a manner of speaking, and yes, normally found as the augmented *-(t)eros, the "contrastive" suffix. Note that *(h₁)upo is an allative to a root noun (or at least analogical on such allatives; the normal fate outside of Anatolian was adverbs, and thence adpositions)

JOUNA: Note that the PIE Lexicon quoted there is not the PIE Lexicon in
http://pielexicon.hum.helsinki.fi/?alpha=ALL

Since when was this a conversation about your lexicon? This is in fact a thread about the lexicon compiled by a fellow conlanger, which you can find by following that link.

[marconatrix]

JOUNA: This item can be added yes, but it is different. The DIL lemma daimid pr. i. ACT.-pres. ind. 3 sg. damuid, -daim is meant

Just to avoid any confusion, da(i)mid /daμ'ıð'/ is the citation form of a verb (3s pres), root daim- /daμ'-/ + -id /-ið/ < unstressed /-iθ#/ < IE /-V+ti/, 'to allow, submit' etc. Is this cognate with the other words in this groups? It does, I think, have a short vowel and so would be a different root (?) from dám 'troop, company'.

Interesting, Thurneysen (s) 190 (English trans.) associates this word with the weak verb damnaid 'to tame' ('cause to submit'?) (s. 692 end), and the noun 'ox' OI dam, and gives the following cognates : Skt. dā'myati; Gk. δάμνημι, δαμάζω, δαμάλης; L. domare; Goth. tamjan.

How is the long vowel in Skt. explained?

[KathTheDragon]

JOUNA: This item can be added yes, but it is different. The DIL lemma daimid pr. i. ACT.-pres. ind. 3 sg. damuid, -daim is meant

Just to avoid any confusion, da(i)mid /daμ'ıð'/ is the citation form of a verb (3s pres), root daim- /daμ'-/ + -id /-ið/ < unstressed /-iθ#/ < IE /-V+ti/, 'to allow, submit' etc. Is this cognate with the other words in this groups? It does, I think, have a short vowel and so would be a different root (?) from dám 'troop, company'.

Interesting, Thurneysen (s) 190 (English trans.) associates this word with the weak verb damnaid 'to tame' ('cause to submit'?) (s. 692 end), and the noun 'ox' OI dam, and gives the following cognates : Skt. dā'myati; Gk. δάμνημι, δαμάζω, δαμάλης; L. domare; Goth. tamjan.

How is the long vowel in Skt. explained?

It would be a zero-grade form, with secondary restoration of the nasal.

[marconatrix]

Interesting, Thurneysen (s) 190 (English trans.) associates this word with the weak verb damnaid 'to tame' ('cause to submit'?) (s. 692 end), and the noun 'ox' OI dam, and gives the following cognates : Skt. dā'myati; Gk. δάμνημι, δαμάζω, δαμάλης; L. domare; Goth. tamjan.

How is the long vowel in Skt. explained?

It would be a zero-grade form, with secondary restoration of the nasal.

Could you explain that for me. What nasal? How would zero grade delete a nasal? (Forgive my ignorance).