European languages before Indo-European

[Åge Kruger]

English has this too, BTW, lip/lap.

But unlike Sweden, AFAIK these two neanings haven't merged in English.

Your original claim was that you "rejected the connection between 'lip' and 'lick' because (unlike the tongue) the lips aren't used for licking (at least primarily)", and yet, here we have two languages (and I can quite likely add some more) where the meaning 'lip' and 'lick' are quite clearly connected. And why wouldn't they be? They both have something to do with the mouth. They're a lot closer than "mushroom" and "lip", if you ask me.

[Octavià]

Your original claim was that you "rejected the connection between 'lip' and 'lick' because (unlike the tongue) the lips aren't used for licking (at least primarily)", and yet, here we have two languages (and I can quite likely add some more) where the meaning 'lip' and 'lick' are quite clearly connected.

No, no. What actually happens is that the words 'lip' and 'lick' are similar or even homonymous in some languages (e.g. in Catalan we've got respectively llavi and llepar). But this doesn't imply these two meanings are actually related.

I hope my point is now clear.

[Åge Kruger]

Your original claim was that you "rejected the connection between 'lip' and 'lick' because (unlike the tongue) the lips aren't used for licking (at least primarily)", and yet, here we have two languages (and I can quite likely add some more) where the meaning 'lip' and 'lick' are quite clearly connected.

No, no. What actually happens is that the words 'lip' and 'lick' are similar or even homonymous in some languages (e.g. in Catalan we've got respectively llavi and llepar). But this doesn't imply these two meanings are actually related.

I hope my point is now clear.

Your point is clear: phonetic similarity does not imply semantic relation.

Which is odd, since your lip/mushroom/arse theory lies purely on phonetic similarity implying semantic relation.

[Octavià]

I hope my point is now clear.

Your point is clear: phonetic similarity does not imply semantic relation.

Which is odd, since your lip/mushroom/arse theory lies purely on phonetic similarity implying semantic relation.

By no means. The thing is lips are a soft tissue which grows from the body, much in the same way mushrooms grow from the ground or tree barks. This is the semantical connection.

Remember that our Stone Age ancestors had a different mindset than today's people. This is why extrapolating our modern way of reasoning to the remote past simply doesn't work.

[Åge Kruger]

I hope my point is now clear.

Your point is clear: phonetic similarity does not imply semantic relation.

Which is odd, since your lip/mushroom/arse theory lies purely on phonetic similarity implying semantic relation.

By no means. The thing is lips are a soft tissue which grows from the body, much in the same way mushrooms grow from the ground or tree barks. This is the semantical connection.

Remember that our Stone Age ancestors had a different mindset than today's people. This is why extrapolating our modern way of reasoning to the remote past simply doesn't work.

Your semantic connection between lip and mushroom is considerably weaker than that between lip and lick.

Pray tell, how do you know what the reasoning of our stone age ancestors was? You were not alive. What specifically about the stone age mindset is it that means that mushroom and lip are semantically related, but lip and lick aren't?

[Octavià]

Your semantic connection between lip and mushroom is considerably weaker than that between lip and lick.

I disagree. Definitely 'lip' can't be related to 'lick' but to 'kiss', and this is so in some languages (e.g. Basque pot 'to kiss' ~ Occitan pot 'lip', augmentative poton 'kiss'). Another possible semantical relative of 'lip' is 'edge', as lips are the edges of the mouth (e.g. Spanish labio means both 'lip' and 'edge').

Pray tell, how do you know what the reasoning of our stone age ancestors was? You were not alive.

Archaeology gives us a fairly idea of the way they used to live. An example of the bibliography devoted to this subject would be Inside the Neolithic Mind: Consciousness, Cosmos, and the Realm of the Gods and The Mind in the Cave: Consciousness and the Origins of Art.

[jal]

However, since we do not know, or at least have no sound proof of, what went on inside the neolithic mind, is't a bit too far a stretch to use that as a convenient way for explaining why "outgrowth" became to mean "lip", "mushroom" and "buttocks", just because the terms for those words seem to be cognates ("seem to be" is being very generous here).


JAL

[Octavià]

However, since we do not know, or at least have no sound proof of, what went on inside the neolithic mind,

I suppose you've never studied anthropology, haven't you?

is't a bit too far a stretch to use that as a convenient way for explaining why "outgrowth" became to mean "lip", "mushroom" and "buttocks", just because the terms for those words seem to be cognates ("seem to be" is being very generous here).

My complaint is about the mistake of assuming ancient preople used to think the same way we do, something which is utterly false.

[Morrígan]

However, since we do not know, or at least have no sound proof of, what went on inside the neolithic mind,

I suppose you've never studied anthropology, haven't you?

Have you ever studied linguistics?

[Viktor77]

You're all forgetting Falgwian. There's evidence in river names to suggest Falgwian predates PIE. However, not in the Baltic region but more likely as a Pre-PIE language spoken in the Balkan region. The language is said to come directly from Africa and was, at this time, a very isolating language which, according to some I've read, is what has been proposed as the structure of the first Mother Tongue (or the first Mother Tongue of Africa anyway). Thus, Falgwian might be our closest connection to the Mother Tongue family of, likely, Western Africa.

[Octavià]

Why are you hijacking this thread, boy? Conlangs don't belong here.

[Grigor]

This is WeepingElf's thread, so STFU.

And you still haven't explained why lip and lick can't be connected in Old European Thingummywatsit, despite the fact that they clearly are related in a number of modern languages.

[Miekko]

Octavià, does your methodology have any way of identifying coincidences? What would it take for two roots that look similar to be disqualified as cognates?

Semantics is paramount. We need first to stablish a link between the meanings of the these two words (e.g. from known semantic parallels). In the above example, I rejected the connection between 'lip' and 'lick' because (unlike the tongue) the lips aren't used for licking (at least primarily).

Funny you would have such an example, as the Swedish cognates 'lapa' and 'läpp' pretty much mean lick, and lip. (Well, lick is a previous meaning, these days it pretty much means '(for an animal) to lift liquid into the mouth using the tongue' ).

I suppose there was a contamination between these two originally different meanings. As you've recognized yourself, licking (or alternatively 'litfing liquid into the mouth') is done with the tongue, not the lips.

One of them is an ablaut form of the other! They derive from the same fucking root. Heck, there's even a newer verb, läppja, which is *visibly derived* from läpp, that means 'lift by using the tongue' so pretty much the same as lapa.

Your ability to criticize your own theory is completely bogus.

[WeepingElf]

Why are you hijacking my thread, boy?

Your thread !??????? Are you funny? You didn't start it. It is true that your hypotheses have recently dominated the discussion here, but that's only because all other members are much more cautious about their own ideas, and let's not forget that you weren't around here when the discussion started and that the quality of discussion was much higher back then, even if there were fewer posts back then. Anyway, I think Viktor77 is just joking. In other words:

You are hijacking this thread, Octavià!

[Octavià]

Funny you would have such an example, as the Swedish cognates 'lapa' and 'läpp' pretty much mean lick, and lip. (Well, lick is a previous meaning, these days it pretty much means '(for an animal) to lift liquid into the mouth using the tongue' ). One of them is an ablaut form of the other! They derive from the same fucking root. Heck, there's even a newer verb, läppja, which is *visibly derived* from läpp, that means 'lift by using the tongue' so pretty much the same as lapa.

Thank you for your remark. It looks like the original meaning of Germanic *lapp- was 'to lick', while the common Germanic word for 'lip' is *lip-. Clearly these two roots are different.

[Octavià]

And you still haven't explained why lip and lick can't be connected in Old European Thingummywatsit, despite the fact that they clearly are related in a number of modern languages.

I'm affraid the coincidence of both meanings in some modern languages doesn't imply things were so in ancient ones. This is actually the same objection I stated earlier: we can't simply extrapolate our modern mindset about things to the remote past.

[Octavià]

You are hijacking this thread, Octavià!

I know you're joking, Jörg!

[Astraios]

Off-Topic:

I'm affraid

Why are you always afraid? You say it at least once every page. And why can't you spell it, if you use it so much?

[Grigor]

And you still haven't explained why lip and lick can't be connected in Old European Thingummywatsit, despite the fact that they clearly are related in a number of modern languages.

I'm affraid the coincidence of both meanings in some modern languages doesn't imply things were so in ancient ones. This is actually the same objection I stated earlier: we can't simply extrapolate our modern mindset about things to the remote past.

Erm...so ancient people never made the connection that lips and licking involved similar areas of the body, but they did make an association between lips, mushrooms and butts.

I mean, really...

[WeepingElf]

You are hijacking this thread, Octavià!

I know you're joking, Jörg!

Off-Topic:

I'm affraid

Why are you always afraid? You say it at least once every page. And why can't you spell it, if you use it so much?

Perhaps he is not so sure about his hypotheses as he pretends to be, and is afraid of the moment when it all collapses

[Astraios]

Perhaps he is not so sure about his hypotheses as he pretends to be, and is afraid of the moment when it all collapses

Yes, that must be it. We found you out, Octavià!

[WeepingElf]

Perhaps he is not so sure about his hypotheses as he pretends to be, and is afraid of the moment when it all collapses

Yes, that must be it. We found you out, Octavià!

Yes. His etymologies are out-of-the-blue speculations and not really worth discussing. It distracts us from the discussion of the - unfortunately meagre - evidence of what kind of languages were spoken in Europe before Indo-European became the dominant language family of the region.

[Octavià]

Yes. His etymologies are out-of-the-blue speculations and not really worth discussing. It distracts us from the discussion of the - unfortunately meagre - evidence of what kind of languages were spoken in Europe before Indo-European became the dominant language family of the region.

I'd call your argument a bluff, Jörg.

As regarding to pre-IE languages, I've shown that the word 'lip' found in some European languages must be a Vasco-Caucasian loanword from the root *tɬ’a:npV. This is independent from other loanwords and Wanderwörter which I think developped from this root.

Erm...so ancient people never made the connection that lips and licking involved similar areas of the body, but they did make an association between lips, mushrooms and butts.

Sorry, but I think you actually missed the point. The fact the meaning 'lick' and 'lip' have conflated in the same word in Sweden is entirely independent of the fact 'lip' might have quite different semantical associations in other languages, namely 'kiss', 'edge' or 'mushroom'.

I've also argued several times that ancient people didn't have to think the same way than we do in many subjects.

[WeepingElf]

Yes. His etymologies are out-of-the-blue speculations and not really worth discussing. It distracts us from the discussion of the - unfortunately meagre - evidence of what kind of languages were spoken in Europe before Indo-European became the dominant language family of the region.

I'd call your argument a bluff, Jörg.

If you think like that, I can't help you.

[Astraios]

I've also argued several times that ancient people didn't have to think the same way than we do in many subjects.

This is true. But it does not mean that they necessarily thought in the ways you propose.