European languages before Indo-European

[TomHChappell]

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

Anything you say to which you have to attach that argument, you have thereby taken out of the realm of "science" and into the realm of "unfalsifiable assertion".
WeepingElf did, in his Original Post, ask us to speculate. But you're evangelizing for your speculations and against all others; and you're using arguments which shift depending on whether you're defending or attacking and on what you're defending or attacking. No fair!

[Morrígan]

I've shown that the word 'lip' found in some European languages must be a Vasco-Caucasian loanword from the root *tɬ’a:npV.

Oh really, it "must be"? And you've shown this?

You are an embarrassment of the most spectacular variety. Your so-called methodology is the worst kind of pseudoscientific drivel, and your style of argumentation would have you laughed out of an introductory university course on valid reasoning. Worst of all, you lack the good sense to be ashamed of yourself.

Were you here in person, I would spare the world your asinine "hypotheses" and put you down like the rabid beast you have shown yourself to be.

[Count Iblis]

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.

That's funny. A page earlier and you were convinced of its Semitic origin.

[Åge Kruger]

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 [...].

But in English and Swedish, we see that the meanings lip and lick are clearly related. If you go back to the PIE roots, you get *leb and *lab, a common enough ablaut.

I have a challenge for you. Apply the same level of criticism to lip/lick as you're applying mushroom/lip/arse, and write up your conclusions in a paper.

[Octavià]

But in English and Swedish, we see that the meanings lip and lick are clearly related.

I've already explained that the fact these meanings might have conflated doesn't imply they were originally related: lips aren't used for licking but the tongue. This would be a case of semantic contamination.

If you go back to the PIE roots, you get *leb and *lab, a common enough ablaut.

Not to mention they're in all probability substrate loanwords, nonetheless due to its *b.

[Octavià]

You are an embarrassment of the most spectacular variety. Your so-called methodology is the worst kind of pseudoscientific drivel, and your style of argumentation would have you laughed out of an introductory university course on valid reasoning. Worst of all, you lack the good sense to be ashamed of yourself.

Were you here in person, I would spare the world your asinine "hypotheses" and put you down like the rabid beast you have shown yourself to be.

This is ad hominem rubbish I laught at.

[Octavià]

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

Anything you say to which you have to attach that argument, you have thereby taken out of the realm of "science" and into the realm of "unfalsifiable assertion".
WeepingElf did, in his Original Post, ask us to speculate. But you're evangelizing for your speculations and against all others; and you're using arguments which shift depending on whether you're defending or attacking and on what you're defending or attacking. No fair!

My point is the semantical contamination between 'lip' and 'lick' in some modern languages doesn't imply they were etymologically related. And the main reason why I think so is that lips aren't used for licking. The argument of "similar body parts" would point precisely to contamination.

[Åge Kruger]

But in English and Swedish, we see that the meanings lip and lick are clearly related.

I've already explained that the fact these meanings might have conflated doesn't imply they were originally related: lips aren't used for licking but the tongue. This would be a case of semantic contamination.

Semantic contamination is when a word which sounds similar to another one undergoes a shift in meaning to be closer to that of the other word. If you think that 'lap' is the result of semantic contamination, then please tell us what the original meaning of 'lap' was (my sources give the meaning 'to lick' all the way back to the PIE root).

If you go back to the PIE roots, you get *leb and *lab, a common enough ablaut.

Not to mention they're in all probability substrate loanwords, nonetheless due to its *b.

I don't think I can agree with you here. I think an imitative source is quite probable for both 'lip' and 'lap'. If you agree with me that *leb* and *lab are probably related, then I don't see why you have a problem with 'lip' and 'lap' being related.

Here is a summary of what I think we currently agree on:
1. The lips aren't used for licking.
2. The tongue is used for licking.
3. The lips are found in the mouth area.
4. The tongue is found in the mouth area.
5. The word "lap" means 'to lick up into the mouth'.
6. 'lip' comes from PIE *leb.
7. 'lap' comes from PIE *lab.
8. *leb and *lab are superficially similar.
9. *leb and *lab are most probably related.

Do we agree to this?

[Octavià]

Semantic contamination is when a word which sounds similar to another one undergoes a shift in meaning to be closer to that of the other word. If you think that 'lap' is the result of semantic contamination, then please tell us what the original meaning of 'lap' was (my sources give the meaning 'to lick' all the way back to the PIE root).

AFAIK it's the word lap which shifted its meaning to 'lip' in some languages (e.g. Sweden), but not in others. For example, in Catalan 'lip' is llavi < VLatin labium and 'lick' is llepar < *lapp-.

If you go back to the PIE roots, you get *leb and *lab, a common enough ablaut.

Not to mention they're in all probability substrate loanwords, nonetheless due to its *b.

I don't think I can agree with you here. I think an imitative source is quite probable for both 'lip' and 'lap'.

But these words have cognates outside IE! This is a consequence of the isolacionist paradigm to which most IE-ists and which adscribes (alomost) everything in IE languages to PIE itself.

If you agree with me that *leb* and *lab are probably related, then I don't see why you have a problem with 'lip' and 'lap' being related.

They're phonetically similar, but I doubt they're semantically related.

[Åge Kruger]

Semantic contamination is when a word which sounds similar to another one undergoes a shift in meaning to be closer to that of the other word. If you think that 'lap' is the result of semantic contamination, then please tell us what the original meaning of 'lap' was (my sources give the meaning 'to lick' all the way back to the PIE root).

AFAIK it's the word lap which shifted its meaning to 'lip' in some languages (e.g. Sweden).

I think you might be a bit confused here. 'lap' hasn't shifted it's meaning to 'lip' in Swedish. Miekko's point was that 'lip'/'läpp' (the edge of the mouth) and 'lap'/'lapa' (to lick up into the mouth) are, in his word, "an ablaut form of the other! They derive from the same fucking root."

If you agree with me that *leb* and *lab are probably related, then I don't see why you have a problem with 'lip' and 'lap' being related.

They're phonetically similar, but I doubt they're semantically related.

You just agreed that they probably came from the same source, one being an ablaut of the other:

If you go back to the PIE roots, you get *leb and *lab, a common enough ablaut.

Not to mention they're in all probability substrate loanwords, nonetheless due to its *b.

Maybe you could take a step back for a while, and examine your theory and those of others in a new light. Maybe be as critical of your own methods, etymologies, etc. as those belonging to others. Right now, you're arguing yourself around in circles, supporting one thing here, and the opposite two posts later. I think you and your theories would benefit from some reflection.

[Octavià]

AFAIK it's the word lap which shifted its meaning to 'lip' in some languages (e.g. Sweden).

I think you might be a bit confused here. 'lap' hasn't shifted it's meaning to 'lip' in Swedish. Miekko's point was that 'lip'/'läpp' (the edge of the mouth) and 'lap'/'lapa' (to lick up into the mouth) are, in his word, "an ablaut form of the other! They derive from the same fucking root."

But he didn't actually quoted that root. Is it Germanic *lip- 'lip' or rather *lapp- 'to lick'?

You just agreed that they probably came from the same source, one being an ablaut of the other:

No, I didn't and I don't.

[Åge Kruger]

AFAIK it's the word lap which shifted its meaning to 'lip' in some languages (e.g. Sweden).

I think you might be a bit confused here. 'lap' hasn't shifted it's meaning to 'lip' in Swedish. Miekko's point was that 'lip'/'läpp' (the edge of the mouth) and 'lap'/'lapa' (to lick up into the mouth) are, in his word, "an ablaut form of the other! They derive from the same fucking root."

But he didn't actually quoted that root. Is it Germanic *lip- 'lip' or rather *lapp- 'to lick'?

Yes. Incidentally, I quoted the root, and yet you still disagree.

You just agreed that they probably came from the same source, one being an ablaut of the other:

No, I didn't and I don't.[/quote]
You did, and I'll quote you again:

If you go back to the PIE roots, you get *leb and *lab, a common enough ablaut.

Not to mention they're in all probability substrate loanwords, nonetheless due to its *b.

There you are, agreeing.

[Octavià]

But he didn't actually quoted that root. Is it Germanic *lip- 'lip' or rather *lapp- 'to lick'?

Yes. Incidentally, I quoted the root, and yet you still disagree.

Yes, because I still think they're two different roots. Do I make myself clear?

[Soap]

Proto-Germanic -pp- is often from PIE /b/ followed by /m/ or /n/ (bn > pn > pp) if that helps.

[Legion]

You are an embarrassment of the most spectacular variety. Your so-called methodology is the worst kind of pseudoscientific drivel, and your style of argumentation would have you laughed out of an introductory university course on valid reasoning. Worst of all, you lack the good sense to be ashamed of yourself.

Were you here in person, I would spare the world your asinine "hypotheses" and put you down like the rabid beast you have shown yourself to be.

This is ad hominem rubbish I laught at.

This has bugged me for quite a time but: Ad hominem doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

[Octavià]

Look, this sentence is an outrageous ad hominem attack:

Were you here in person, I would spare the world your asinine "hypotheses" and put you down like the rabid beast you have shown yourself to be.

It contains at least two different insults: "asinine" and "rabid beast" and it looks also like a death threat. This is a criminal offence in most countries.

[Åge Kruger]

But he didn't actually quoted that root. Is it Germanic *lip- 'lip' or rather *lapp- 'to lick'?

Yes. Incidentally, I quoted the root, and yet you still disagree.

Yes, because I still think they're two different roots. Do I make myself clear?

Yes, you make yourself clear. It's just very hard to believe that you would insist that *leb and *lab are two different roots, and that 'lip' and 'lap' aren't semantically related when, at the same time, you claim that mushroom, lip, and buttock are semantically related and roots as diverse as *kómpV, *tɬ’a:npV, *ƛep, and *swombh come ultimately from the same root.

It's kind of like saying Sonic, Luigi, and Usain Bolt are definitely of the same father because Sonic is an animal, Luigi is the same color as Yoshi, and Usain Bolt is fast like Sonic, and tall like Luigi, but meanwhile, Mario and Luigi aren't brothers because one wears red and the other wears green.

[Octavià]

Yes, you make yourself clear. It's just very hard to believe that you would insist that *leb and *lab are two different roots, and that 'lip' and 'lap' aren't semantically related

Yes, I think so. Although this doesn't exclude they could have contaminated each other in some languages.

when, at the same time, you claim that mushroom, lip, and buttock are semantically related and roots as diverse as *kómpV, *tɬ’a:npV, *ƛep, and *swombh come ultimately from the same root.

These are semantic drifts which presumably took place in different languages. But substratal IE *leb- 'lip' (IMHO a loanword from some reflex of *tɬ’a:npV) kept the original meaning.

BTW, Sino-Tibetan *tɬep is 'lick' and so possibly related to IE *lab-.

[Morrígan]

Look, this sentence is an outrageous ad hominem attack:

Were you here in person, I would spare the world your asinine "hypotheses" and put you down like the rabid beast you have shown yourself to be.

It contains at least two different insults: "asinine" and "rabid beast" and it looks also like a death threat. This is a criminal offence in most countries.

No, ad hominem is an insult masquerading as a valid argument. What I'm doing is blatantly insulting you. There is a big difference.

[Octavià]

No, ad hominem is an insult masquerading as a valid argument. What I'm doing is blatantly insulting you. There is a big difference.

Then I'd kindly ask you leave this thread.

More enough, I think you should be banned. People who insult and death threat others HAVE NO PLACE HERE.

[Morrígan]

No, ad hominem is an insult masquerading as a valid argument. What I'm doing is blatantly insulting you. There is a big difference.

Then I'd kindly ask you leave this thread.

I'd kindly ask you to go fuck yourself, but that's not going to happen.

Really, I don't see how you have provided any kind of case for why these words have to be related, but "lip" and "lick" are way too different. Also, everyone is extremely leery about Starostin's PNC reconstructions which you always pull out as though it was definitive proof of anything other than your flawed and amaturish methodology.

[Octavià]

Really, I don't see how you have provided any kind of case for why these words have to be related,

Which words? Namely Spanish seta 'mushroom' and jeta 'muzzle', which in some dialects are found with the alternative meaning (that is, seta is 'muzzle' and jeta is 'tinder')?

I think somebody else is actually fucked, not me!

[Soap]

Yeah. Come on guys, what were you thinking? Obviously a single example of a semantic shift that isn't even in the dictionary proves that it must have also happened 7000 years ago in the northern European plains. And sure, he said it required a "Stone Age" mentality to make that kind of association, but hey, it's Spain, they're pretty backwards, right? Oh, you might object, "muzzle and lips aren't the same thing" but come on, who really knows the difference. I mean who among us hasn't said to a girl "Your muzzle is so beautiful!"

[Legion]

I didn't see any death threat nor any ad hominem, so clearly Octavia you don't know what you're talking about. Ad hominem doesn't mean "insult".

Ad hominem means, more exactly, discreditting what someone says based on what someone is.

"You're a jew/homosexual/white western male/communist/poor/rich so everything you say is nonsensical".

This, is an ad hominem.

But we're not saying: "You're a quack, so everything you say must be nonsensical", which would be an ad hominem.

We're saying "Everything you say is nonsensical, so you must be a quack", which is a testable, falsifiable claim (a thing you have yet to provide for your part) with a conclusion that follows logically provided the premice is proved to be true.

And since so far you have:
1) failed to convince a single person in this tread, be them only amateur linguists or people deeply invested in historical linguistics
2) failed to demonstrate even a basis command on logic, rational thinking and consistent development, notably using astrology as a linguistic argument, and generally producing sophism after sophism, arbitrarily changing your criteria as it fitted your "arguments"
3) acted in an annoying hubristic fashion as if you owned the place, picturing other people as delluded morons, indulging in paranoid conspiracy theories, complaining about attack against yourself that did not actually happen, and generally been extremely unsufferable and obnoxious

You will find out that the scientific consensus on this board tends toward the validation of the hypothesis that you are, indeed, a quack, and also the only person in this thread who should be banned, on account of the nuisance you are a direct and indirect source of.

[Octavià]

I didn't see any death threat nor any ad hominem, so clearly Octavia you don't know what you're talking about. Ad hominem doesn't mean "insult".

So are you pretending that "put you down" doesn't mean "kill you"? You must be joking!

You will find out that the scientific consensus on this board tends toward the validation of the hypothesis that you are, indeed, a quack, and also the only person in this thread who should be banned, on account of the nuisance you are a direct and indirect source of.

You get the same answer I gave to Goatface earlier: the more you insult me, the weaker becomes your position.