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 wrote:But unlike Sweden, AFAIK these two neanings haven't merged in English.Åge Kruger wrote:English has this too, BTW, lip/lap.
European languages before Indo-European
- Åge Kruger
- Lebom
- Posts: 169
- Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2003 9:33 am
- Location: Norway
- Contact:
Re: European languages before Indo-European
[quote="Soviet Russia"]If you can't join them, beat them.[/quote]
Re: European languages before Indo-European
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.Åge Kruger wrote: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.
I hope my point is now clear.
- Åge Kruger
- Lebom
- Posts: 169
- Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2003 9:33 am
- Location: Norway
- Contact:
Re: European languages before Indo-European
Your point is clear: phonetic similarity does not imply semantic relation.Octavià wrote: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.Åge Kruger wrote: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.
I hope my point is now clear.
Which is odd, since your lip/mushroom/arse theory lies purely on phonetic similarity implying semantic relation.
[quote="Soviet Russia"]If you can't join them, beat them.[/quote]
Re: European languages before Indo-European
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.Åge Kruger wrote:Your point is clear: phonetic similarity does not imply semantic relation.Octavià wrote:I hope my point is now clear.
Which is odd, since your lip/mushroom/arse theory lies purely on phonetic similarity implying semantic relation.
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
- Lebom
- Posts: 169
- Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2003 9:33 am
- Location: Norway
- Contact:
Re: European languages before Indo-European
Your semantic connection between lip and mushroom is considerably weaker than that between lip and lick.Octavià wrote: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.Åge Kruger wrote:Your point is clear: phonetic similarity does not imply semantic relation.Octavià wrote:I hope my point is now clear.
Which is odd, since your lip/mushroom/arse theory lies purely on phonetic similarity implying semantic relation.
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.
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?
[quote="Soviet Russia"]If you can't join them, beat them.[/quote]
Re: European languages before Indo-European
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').Åge Kruger wrote:Your semantic connection between lip and mushroom is considerably weaker than that between lip and lick.
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.Åge Kruger wrote:Pray tell, how do you know what the reasoning of our stone age ancestors was? You were not alive.
Last edited by Octavià on Wed Dec 15, 2010 10:50 am, edited 2 times in total.
Re: European languages before Indo-European
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
JAL
Re: European languages before Indo-European
I suppose you've never studied anthropology, haven't you?jal wrote:However, since we do not know, or at least have no sound proof of, what went on inside the neolithic mind,
My complaint is about the mistake of assuming ancient preople used to think the same way we do, something which is utterly false.jal wrote: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).
Re: European languages before Indo-European
Have you ever studied linguistics?Octavià wrote:I suppose you've never studied anthropology, haven't you?jal wrote:However, since we do not know, or at least have no sound proof of, what went on inside the neolithic mind,
Re: European languages before Indo-European
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.
Re: European languages before Indo-European
Why are you hijacking this thread, boy? Conlangs don't belong here.
Last edited by Octavià on Wed Dec 15, 2010 12:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: European languages before Indo-European
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.
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
- Avisaru
- Posts: 364
- Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2003 9:43 am
- Location: the turing machine doesn't stop here any more
- Contact:
Re: European languages before Indo-European
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.Octavià wrote: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.Miekko wrote: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?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' ).Octavià wrote: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).
Your ability to criticize your own theory is completely bogus.
< Cev> My people we use cars. I come from a very proud car culture-- every part of the car is used, nothing goes to waste. When my people first saw the car, generations ago, we called it šuŋka wakaŋ-- meaning "automated mobile".
- WeepingElf
- Smeric
- Posts: 1630
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:00 pm
- Location: Braunschweig, Germany
- Contact:
Re: European languages before Indo-European
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:Octavià wrote:Why are you hijacking my thread, boy?
You are hijacking this thread, Octavià!
...brought to you by the Weeping Elf
Tha cvastam émi cvastam santham amal phelsa. -- Friedrich Schiller
ESTAR-3SG:P human-OBJ only human-OBJ true-OBJ REL-LOC play-3SG:A
Tha cvastam émi cvastam santham amal phelsa. -- Friedrich Schiller
ESTAR-3SG:P human-OBJ only human-OBJ true-OBJ REL-LOC play-3SG:A
Re: European languages before Indo-European
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.Miekko wrote: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.
Last edited by Octavià on Wed Dec 15, 2010 12:27 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Re: European languages before Indo-European
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.Medved wrote: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.
Re: European languages before Indo-European
I know you're joking, Jörg!WeepingElf wrote:You are hijacking this thread, Octavià!
Re: European languages before Indo-European
Off-Topic:
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?Octavià wrote:I'm affraid
Re: European languages before Indo-European
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.Octavià wrote: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.Medved wrote: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 mean, really...
- WeepingElf
- Smeric
- Posts: 1630
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:00 pm
- Location: Braunschweig, Germany
- Contact:
Re: European languages before Indo-European
Octavià wrote:I know you're joking, Jörg!WeepingElf wrote:You are hijacking this thread, Octavià!
Perhaps he is not so sure about his hypotheses as he pretends to be, and is afraid of the moment when it all collapsesAstraios wrote:Off-Topic: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?Octavià wrote:I'm affraid
...brought to you by the Weeping Elf
Tha cvastam émi cvastam santham amal phelsa. -- Friedrich Schiller
ESTAR-3SG:P human-OBJ only human-OBJ true-OBJ REL-LOC play-3SG:A
Tha cvastam émi cvastam santham amal phelsa. -- Friedrich Schiller
ESTAR-3SG:P human-OBJ only human-OBJ true-OBJ REL-LOC play-3SG:A
Re: European languages before Indo-European
Yes, that must be it. We found you out, Octavià!WeepingElf wrote:Perhaps he is not so sure about his hypotheses as he pretends to be, and is afraid of the moment when it all collapses
- WeepingElf
- Smeric
- Posts: 1630
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:00 pm
- Location: Braunschweig, Germany
- Contact:
Re: European languages before Indo-European
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.Astraios wrote:Yes, that must be it. We found you out, Octavià!WeepingElf wrote:Perhaps he is not so sure about his hypotheses as he pretends to be, and is afraid of the moment when it all collapses
...brought to you by the Weeping Elf
Tha cvastam émi cvastam santham amal phelsa. -- Friedrich Schiller
ESTAR-3SG:P human-OBJ only human-OBJ true-OBJ REL-LOC play-3SG:A
Tha cvastam émi cvastam santham amal phelsa. -- Friedrich Schiller
ESTAR-3SG:P human-OBJ only human-OBJ true-OBJ REL-LOC play-3SG:A
Re: European languages before Indo-European
I'd call your argument a bluff, Jörg.WeepingElf wrote: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.
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.
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'.medved wrote: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've also argued several times that ancient people didn't have to think the same way than we do in many subjects.
Last edited by Octavià on Wed Dec 15, 2010 5:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- WeepingElf
- Smeric
- Posts: 1630
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:00 pm
- Location: Braunschweig, Germany
- Contact:
Re: European languages before Indo-European
If you think like that, I can't help you.Octavià wrote:I'd call your argument a bluff, Jörg.WeepingElf wrote: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.
...brought to you by the Weeping Elf
Tha cvastam émi cvastam santham amal phelsa. -- Friedrich Schiller
ESTAR-3SG:P human-OBJ only human-OBJ true-OBJ REL-LOC play-3SG:A
Tha cvastam émi cvastam santham amal phelsa. -- Friedrich Schiller
ESTAR-3SG:P human-OBJ only human-OBJ true-OBJ REL-LOC play-3SG:A
Re: European languages before Indo-European
This is true. But it does not mean that they necessarily thought in the ways you propose.Octavià wrote:I've also argued several times that ancient people didn't have to think the same way than we do in many subjects.