WeepingElf's Europic thread

[WeepingElf]

Which linguistic implications? I never claimed that any IE word meaning 'house', 'home' or `dwelling' has anything to do with a verb meaning 'to dig', and I am not aware of any such connection existing in PIE. It seems to me that you are beginning to confuse your critics with each other.

You used "linguistic archaeology" to date PIE. Well, the weak point of your hypothesis is the lack of linguistic evidence which links LBK farmers to OEH. Now I'm trying to build such a evidence (either positive or negative).

I admit that so far, I haven't found concrete positive evidence for that link, but I doubt that the linguistic landscape of Mesolithic Europe was homogenous enough to allow for such a phenomenon as the Old European Hydronymy, so I think it was due to the Neolithic population movements of which we know that they happened, and which appear to have started in the right area.

In my opinion, *s and *h2 are not freely interchangeable. They are entirely different phonemes, as are, for instance, *t and *k.

I think you didn't understand my point. As yourself stated some time ago, there're 2 OEH roots, al- and sal-, with different phonetics but similar meaning. They correspond respectively to PIE *Hael- 'to well up, to flow' and *sel- 'to move quickly; to jump', both possibly being different reflexes of the same Paleo-Eurasian/Nostratic root.

When did I say that??? The roots *al- and *sal- are both well-represented in the OEH, but I consider them to be two different roots and see no reason to consider them variants of the same root. You are attacking a strawman.

If Dolgopolsky's correspondences are right, then the form with *s- would be PIE-native while the one with *H- would be a borrowing from a sister (i.e. "Europic") language, although it also could be the other way around (as Mr Fournet proposes), so the sound shift *DZ- > *H2- would be PIE-native.

Forget Dolgopolsky. His hypotheses are in my opinion not sufficiently buttressed by evidence, his sound correspondences are doubtful, and they are irrelevant to my hypothesis.

In that case, it's also reasonable for *H2- > *H2- to be PIE-native, so words with *H2- > *s- like *selo- or *sem- would be loanwords from an "Europic" sister language to PIE.

My question is then: is there any chance we can adscribe the language of the s-words to a particular archaeological culture such as LBK or not?

Your question is baseless. It refers to a problem which only exists in your imagination.

[Octaviano]

I admit that so far, I haven't found concrete positive evidence for that link, but I doubt that the linguistic landscape of Mesolithic Europe was homogenous enough to allow for such a phenomenon as the Old European Hydronymy, so I think it was due to the Neolithic population movements of which we know that they happened, and which appear to have started in the right area.

But as you've stated before, this is only a hypothesis, not based on actual evidence.

I think you didn't understand my point. As yourself stated some time ago, there're 2 OEH roots, al- and sal-, with different phonetics but similar meaning. They correspond respectively to PIE *Hael- 'to well up, to flow' and *sel- 'to move quickly; to jump', both possibly being different reflexes of the same Paleo-Eurasian/Nostratic root.

When did I say that??? The roots *al- and *sal- are both well-represented in the OEH, but I consider them to be two different roots and see no reason to consider them variants of the same root. You are attacking a strawman.

If you consider them to be different, I think the opposite. And this relationship has important linguistic implications, you see.

[WeepingElf]

I admit that so far, I haven't found concrete positive evidence for that link, but I doubt that the linguistic landscape of Mesolithic Europe was homogenous enough to allow for such a phenomenon as the Old European Hydronymy, so I think it was due to the Neolithic population movements of which we know that they happened, and which appear to have started in the right area.

But as you've stated before, this is only a hypothesis, not based on actual evidence.

Sure. I am going to do some research on it which I hope will turn up more evidence. Consider this: the element *hal- is found in many placenames such as Halle, Bad Reichenhall, Schwäbisch Hall, Hallstatt etc. All these places have one thing in common: they are sites where salt is produced, or was produced in the past. This means that *hal- is the Hesperic word root meaning 'salt'. I don't know whether Mesolithic hunter-gatherers mined salt (AFAIK, there is no shred of evidence for that); Neolithic people certainly did.

I think you didn't understand my point. As yourself stated some time ago, there're 2 OEH roots, al- and sal-, with different phonetics but similar meaning. They correspond respectively to PIE *Hael- 'to well up, to flow' and *sel- 'to move quickly; to jump', both possibly being different reflexes of the same Paleo-Eurasian/Nostratic root.

When did I say that??? The roots *al- and *sal- are both well-represented in the OEH, but I consider them to be two different roots and see no reason to consider them variants of the same root. You are attacking a strawman.

If you consider them to be different, I think the opposite. And this relationship has important linguistic implications, you see.

You claimed that I said that, which is not the case - and at any rate, it is your opinion, not mine. You use this "sound correspondence" to buttress your entirely fictional idea that the speakers of PIE lived in dug-out dwellings, which is not what we know about the people who were the most likely speakers of PIE, namely those of Ukraine about 6,000 years ago.

[Octaviano]

You use this "sound correspondence" to buttress your entirely fictional idea that the speakers of PIE lived in dug-out dwellings, which is not what we know about the people who were the most likely speakers of PIE, namely those of Ukraine about 6,000 years ago.

I actually used this corresponde to characterize the OEH, not PIE. Anyway, I've dropped this idea.

[WeepingElf]

You use this "sound correspondence" to buttress your entirely fictional idea that the speakers of PIE lived in dug-out dwellings, which is not what we know about the people who were the most likely speakers of PIE, namely those of Ukraine about 6,000 years ago.

I actually used this corresponde to characterize the OEH, not PIE. Anyway, I've dropped this idea.

OK. So we can lay that matter to rest.

[Octaviano]

Sure. I am going to do some research on it which I hope will turn up more evidence. Consider this: the element *hal- is found in many placenames such as Halle, Bad Reichenhall, Schwäbisch Hall, Hallstatt etc. All these places have one thing in common: they are sites where salt is produced, or was produced in the past. This means that *hal- is the Hesperic word root meaning 'salt'. I don't know whether Mesolithic hunter-gatherers mined salt (AFAIK, there is no shred of evidence for that); Neolithic people certainly did.

According to my colleague Arnaud Fournet, this root corresponds to Kartvelian *zoγw- 'sea' and (via loanword) Germanic *saiwa-z 'sea'. The *z- evolved to *s- in PIE *seH2/4-(e)-l 'salt', while it became *h- in OEH hal- (without asterisk). This is the same isogloss I wrote about before.

Apparently, the word 'sea' in the ancestor of PIE changed its meaning (with the addition of a suffix) to 'salt' in PIE. This left room for a new word *móri- 'sea' whose original meaning was 'water' (PA *mjú:ri), borrowed from Paleo-European (the westernmost branch of Altaic).

[WeepingElf]

Sure. I am going to do some research on it which I hope will turn up more evidence. Consider this: the element *hal- is found in many placenames such as Halle, Bad Reichenhall, Schwäbisch Hall, Hallstatt etc. All these places have one thing in common: they are sites where salt is produced, or was produced in the past. This means that *hal- is the Hesperic word root meaning 'salt'. I don't know whether Mesolithic hunter-gatherers mined salt (AFAIK, there is no shred of evidence for that); Neolithic people certainly did.

According to my colleague Arnaud Fournet, this root corresponds to Kartvelian *zoγw- 'sea' and (via loanword) Germanic *saiwa-z 'sea'. The *z- evolved to *s- in PIE *seH2/4-(e)-l 'salt', while it became *h- in OEH hal- (without asterisk). This is the same isogloss I wrote about before.

A loan from Kartvelian into IE is possible. It is much less ridiculous than the idea of an Altaic language in prehistoric northwestern Europe. But where does in your opinion the *l in the IE word come from? And how does that prove that the OEH was Mesolithic?

Apparently, the word 'sea' in the ancestor of PIE changed its meaning (with the addition of a suffix) to 'salt' in PIE. This left room for a new word *móri- 'sea' whose original meaning was 'water' (PA *mjú:ri), borrowed from Paleo-European (the westernmost branch of Altaic).

Forget about Altaic here! That's utter nonsense.

[Octaviano]

According to my colleague Arnaud Fournet, this root corresponds to Kartvelian *zoγw- 'sea' and (via loanword) Germanic *saiwa-z 'sea'. The *z- evolved to *s- in PIE *seH2/4-(e)-l 'salt', while it became *h- in OEH hal- (without asterisk). This is the same isogloss I wrote about before.

A loan from Kartvelian into IE is possible.

I think this is actually a native PIE word with a Kartvelian cognate. Yes, it's possible (although I don't have enough evidence at present for a definitive answer) for IE and Kartvelian to be relatives, although this would be the subject of another thread.

It is much less ridiculous than the idea of an Altaic language in prehistoric northwestern Europe.

I'm affraid this is a unjustified opinion, especially because you defend the idea a multiplicity of languages in Europe in the Mesolithic. Why the hell couldn't be a branch of Altaic among them?

But where does in your opinion the *l in the IE word come from?

It looks like some kind of suffix, perhaps one expressing qualities (i.e. an adjective-forming one). From the original meaning of 'sea', the suffixed form would have meant 'salty' ~ 'salt', as I suppose there wasn't a neat distinction between nouns and adjectives in early PIE.

And how does that prove that the OEH was Mesolithic?

It shows the shift *z- > h- had already taken place, but it doesn't tell us when.

[Dewrad]

this would be the subject of another thread.

Please don't.

[Octaviano]

Sure I will

[Morrígan]

I didn't mention this before because I didn't remember it specifically until today, but Starostin's reconstructions suffer from one really serious flaw, particularly with respect to what you are investigating, Octaviano.

That is, he reconstructs for the PNC level words which are attested in only a single language. This makes it impossible to determine, as far as I can tell, what words are loans into individual languages and which are original to the PNC lexicon, unless we carefully check which languages a word is attested in. The problem is severly compounded by the time-depth involved, and the fact that pretty much all data comes from modern languages.

This is assuming, of course, that North-Caucasian is even a valid clade, which is certainly possible, but not sufficiently well-supported by dubious reconstructions like PNC.

[WeepingElf]

According to my colleague Arnaud Fournet, this root corresponds to Kartvelian *zoγw- 'sea' and (via loanword) Germanic *saiwa-z 'sea'. The *z- evolved to *s- in PIE *seH2/4-(e)-l 'salt', while it became *h- in OEH hal- (without asterisk). This is the same isogloss I wrote about before.

A loan from Kartvelian into IE is possible.

I think this is actually a native PIE word with a Kartvelian cognate. Yes, it's possible (although I don't have enough evidence at present for a definitive answer) for IE and Kartvelian to be relatives, although this would be the subject of another thread.

A relationship between IE and Kartvelian is indeed possible. There are some vague similarities in morphology, and the geographical distance is not great. Though I think that the relationship is not as close as that between IE and Uralic.

It is much less ridiculous than the idea of an Altaic language in prehistoric northwestern Europe.

I'm affraid this is a unjustified opinion, especially because you defend the idea a multiplicity of languages in Europe in the Mesolithic. Why the hell couldn't be a branch of Altaic among them?

Because Proto-Altaic (whose existence is still controversial, though likely) was far away from northwestern Europe - it was deep in Central Asia, if not Mongolia; and probably not earlier than 8000 BC. While it is not entirely impossible, it is in my opinion very unlikely that there was a branch of Altaic among the languages of Mesolithic Europe. The burden of proof is on the shoulders of who claims that there was an Altaic language in northwestern Europe. But if Altaic is related to Indo-European and Uralic (and it looks like that), lexical resemblances between Altaic and words with unclear etymology in northwestern IE languages can be explained by assuming that Proto-Eurasiatic words otherwise known from Altaic languages have survived in Hesperic.

But where does in your opinion the *l in the IE word come from?

It looks like some kind of suffix, perhaps one expressing qualities (i.e. an adjective-forming one). From the original meaning of 'sea', the suffixed form would have meant 'salty' ~ 'salt', as I suppose there wasn't a neat distinction between nouns and adjectives in early PIE.

Possible.

And how does that prove that the OEH was Mesolithic?

It shows the shift *z- > h- had already taken place, but it doesn't tell us when.

Indeed not. I still see no problem with the OEH being Neolithic, and while the hal- argument doesn't yet prove it, it does IMHO speak for it. The details of Europic historical phonology are not expolored yet; I am going to do more research on them.

[Octaviano]

A relationship between IE and Kartvelian is indeed possible. There are some vague similarities in morphology, and the geographical distance is not great. Though I think that the relationship is not as close as that between IE and Uralic.

PIE phonetics is closer to Kartvelian than Uralic. If Indo-Europeanists like Adrados are right, (most) IE morphology was a late development and hence not indicative of a genetical relationship.

Because Proto-Altaic (whose existence is still controversial, though likely) was far away from northwestern Europe - it was deep in Central Asia, if not Mongolia; and probably not earlier than 8000 BC.

Well, some theories about PIE homeland placed it not far way from that.

While it is not entirely impossible, it is in my opinion very unlikely that there was a branch of Altaic among the languages of Mesolithic Europe.

As you said, this is an opinion.

The burden of proof is on the shoulders of who claims that there was an Altaic language in northwestern Europe. But if Altaic is related to Indo-European and Uralic (and it looks like that), lexical resemblances between Altaic and words with unclear etymology in northwestern IE languages can be explained by assuming that Proto-Eurasiatic words otherwise known from Altaic languages have survived in Hesperic.

I disagree. The sound correspondences I've found are those expected from an Altaic language, specifically one close to Turkic. IMHO, Paleo-European was the westernmost branch of Altaic next to Turkic.

Indeed not. I still see no problem with the OEH being Neolithic, and while the hal- argument doesn't yet prove it, it does IMHO speak for it.

My colleague Arnaud thinks hal- is Celtic, although I'm not sure about that.

[WeepingElf]

A relationship between IE and Kartvelian is indeed possible. There are some vague similarities in morphology, and the geographical distance is not great. Though I think that the relationship is not as close as that between IE and Uralic.

PIE phonetics is closer to Kartvelian than Uralic. If Indo-Europeanists like Adrados are right, (most) IE morphology was a late development and hence not indicative of a genetical relationship.

Indeed, PIE is phonologically more similar to Kartvelian than to Uralic. But that doesn't prove anything but contact - neighbouring but unrelated languages often share phonological features, while related languages can differ vastly in phonology. Phonology is highly susceptible to substratum influence.

But what regards the "late development" of IE morphology, I don't think so. Morphology seems to a great part to correspond between IE and Uralic, and that is the main reason why Indo-Uralic is likely. Several long-range comparativists tend to brush away the morphologies of the languages compared as "late development" and postulate an isolating protolanguage, even if all the languages compared are rich in morphology. But that is quite a sure sign that they are comparing not languages but dictionaries, and have to dispose of the morphology because it just won't play ball. What these people are doing is to throw away the strongest evidence they could get for (or against) relationship, and almost always indicates that there is something wrong with the claim of relationship.

Because Proto-Altaic (whose existence is still controversial, though likely) was far away from northwestern Europe - it was deep in Central Asia, if not Mongolia; and probably not earlier than 8000 BC.

Well, some theories about PIE homeland placed it not far way from that.

But you claim that your "Macro-Altaic" substratum language was in Central Europe, not somewhere in the Central Asian steppe, or did I misunderstand something?

While it is not entirely impossible, it is in my opinion very unlikely that there was a branch of Altaic among the languages of Mesolithic Europe.

As you said, this is an opinion.

Sure. But unless I am convinced otherwise, I won't expect an Altaic language in Central Europe.

The burden of proof is on the shoulders of who claims that there was an Altaic language in northwestern Europe. But if Altaic is related to Indo-European and Uralic (and it looks like that), lexical resemblances between Altaic and words with unclear etymology in northwestern IE languages can be explained by assuming that Proto-Eurasiatic words otherwise known from Altaic languages have survived in Hesperic.

I disagree. The sound correspondences I've found are those expected from an Altaic language, specifically one close to Turkic. IMHO, Paleo-European was the westernmost branch of Altaic next to Turkic.

Show, don't tell. Show us that there are recurring regular sound correspondences in dozens of words. The burden of proof is on you.

Indeed not. I still see no problem with the OEH being Neolithic, and while the hal- argument doesn't yet prove it, it does IMHO speak for it.

My colleague Arnaud thinks hal- is Celtic, although I'm not sure about that.

The idea that hal- was Celtic is frequently found in the older literature, but the Proto-Celtic root for 'salt' is actually *sal-, and the *s- > h- change is found only in Brythonic. Some scholars even adduce Greek, which has hal- - but was probably never spoken in Central Europe, and I think I need not say what to think of that explanation. Other scholars have reacted on these problems by assuming that hal- is from PIE *kel- 'slope', whose o-grade would yield *hal- in Germanic (and actually attested in German Halde 'heap') - but that hypothesis fails to take into account the close association of this element with salt production. No, hal- means 'salt', but must be from a prehistoric language, probably a language related to Indo-European and spoken in Neolithic times.

[Octaviano]

PIE phonetics is closer to Kartvelian than Uralic. If Indo-Europeanists like Adrados are right, (most) IE morphology was a late development and hence not indicative of a genetical relationship.

Indeed, PIE is phonologically more similar to Kartvelian than to Uralic. But that doesn't prove anything but contact - neighbouring but unrelated languages often share phonological features, while related languages can differ vastly in phonology. Phonology is highly susceptible to substratum influence.

Maybe so.

But what regards the "late development" of IE morphology, I don't think so. Morphology seems to a great part to correspond between IE and Uralic, and that is the main reason why Indo-Uralic is likely. Several long-range comparativists tend to brush away the morphologies of the languages compared as "late development" and postulate an isolating protolanguage, even if all the languages compared are rich in morphology. But that is quite a sure sign that they are comparing not languages but dictionaries, and have to dispose of the morphology because it just won't play ball. What these people are doing is to throw away the strongest evidence they could get for (or against) relationship, and almost always indicates that there is something wrong with the claim of relationship.

I'd recommend you read Adrados' earlier work (not the crap issued for mass audience).

But you claim that your "Macro-Altaic" substratum language was in Central Europe, not somewhere in the Central Asian steppe, or did I misunderstand something?

"My" Paleo-European was the westernmost branch of (Macro-)Altaic, not Proto-Altaic itself.

But unless I am convinced otherwise, I won't expect an Altaic language in Central Europe.

Well, genetics tell us (see for example Oppenheimer's Out of Eden. The peopling of the world) there were two different colonizations of Europe during the Upper Paleolithic. The second one (related to the Gravettian culture) was made precisely from Central Asia, so it could be associated with the spread of Paleo-European.

I disagree. The sound correspondences I've found are those expected from an Altaic language, specifically one close to Turkic. IMHO, Paleo-European was the westernmost branch of Altaic next to Turkic.

Show, don't tell. Show us that there are recurring regular sound correspondences in dozens of words. The burden of proof is on you.

Don't be stupid. There're indeed regular sound correspondences but no in "dozens of words" as the corpus is small. How many times must I told you that?

Other scholars have reacted on these problems by assuming that hal- is from PIE *kel- 'slope', whose o-grade would yield *hal- in Germanic (and actually attested in German Halde 'heap')

This root is actually represented in Basque garai 'high' and (g)al- in compounds.

but that hypothesis fails to take into account the close association of this element with salt production. No, hal- means 'salt', but must be from a prehistoric language, probably a language related to Indo-European and spoken in Neolithic times.

You should demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the root hal- in these toponyms specifically means 'salt'. Using your own words, "the burden of proof is on you".

[Morrígan]

Don't be stupid. There're indeed regular sound correspondences but no in "dozens of words" as the corpus is small. How many times must I told you that?

Are you fucking serious? Are you fucking serious?

What the fuck is wrong with you? You cry 'ad hominem' when we point out that your methodology is poor, and then you go around calling historical linguists incompetent, and board members stupid. You are fucking terrible.

Also, they are not regular sound correspondences unless there are a lot of them.

BTW, you, sir, are awful linguist. And just to say it again:

[Octaviano]

Don't be stupid. There're indeed regular sound correspondences but no in "dozens of words" as the corpus is small. How many times must I told you that?

Are you fucking serious? Are you fucking serious?

Yes, I'm serious (without smearwords).

What the fuck is wrong with you? You cry 'ad hominem' when we point out that your methodology is poor, and then you go around calling historical linguists incompetent, and board members stupid.

Telling somebody not to be stupid isn't the same thing than calling him/her "stupid".

You are fucking terrible.

What about you? Didn't you hear the story about straws and beams?

Also, they are not regular sound correspondences unless there are a lot of them.

No, there's no need of "a lot of them" to show they're regular indeed.

BTW, you, sir, are awful linguist.

No, man, I'm the best one working with such a scarce data.

[Morrígan]

Telling somebody not to be stupid isn't the same thing than calling him/her "stupid".

I disagree.

What about you? Didn't you hear the story about straws and beams?

Oct, I am a terrible person. I'm cruel, obnoxious, mean spirited, and uncharitable. But by the gods, I am a good linguist.

No, there's no need of "a lot of them" to show they're regular indeed.

That depends on your definition of "a lot". But two or three probably won't cut it. You are going to need more than that to demonstrate the relationship to anyone.

No, man, I'm the best one working with such a scarce data.

Hey, nice smug attitude you have there. You sure do know better than those mainstream linguists who are deluded by orthodoxy, huh?

[Octaviano]

Oct, I am a terrible person. I'm cruel, obnoxious, mean spirited, and uncharitable. But by the gods, I am a good linguist.

Ha, ha, ha.

[Etherman]

No, there's no need of "a lot of them" to show they're regular indeed.

I've seen 5 (for each correspondence) used as a rule of thumb. Most people, if not convinced, would at least think that you're on to something, especially if you had grammatical morphemes included.

[Kereb]

Octaviano: stop choosing to respond to the personal content of every thread. There is one issue you have dodged for twenty-two pages spread over three threads.

Time to lay down THE proof that everyone has told you they need to be convinced. Nothing in your character will convince anyone. That is not how theories work.

Regular sound correspondences, now. Not one or two examples. Five or six would be AMAZING coming from you. Remember when you couldn't show us because you had too much proof? And now you're spinning NOT having enough proof as an act of academic daring akin to doing trapeze without a net; we're supposed to respect you for going where more timid linguists, hindered by the burden of proof, won't go.

Enough. You know how to prove your theory.

Proof or get the fuck out. Now.

[Octaviano]

Proof or get the fuck out. Now.

You'd better shut up, Berek. You or anyboby else isn't going to give me orders.

[Pthagnar]

just as sure as you're never gonna deliver

[Kereb]

HOW mean do I have to be for you to be relieved of the burden of proof completely? What name do I have to call you to excuse you from having to show the correspondences everyone's after?

We could make a team! You peruse your dictionaries, claim "discovery" every time you find one or two chance resemblances, then make up an on-the-spot "correspondence" with one or (MAYBE) two examples, like you've been doing in all these threads ...

Then we head to a university and you present this as evidence. When some linguist there tells you you don't have enough data to prove a correspondence, I walk in and call you a stupid cunt. In the eyes of academia, your theory is now solid.

I'll do it for a thousand bucks.

Or you could just show the damn evidence already. Ten more pages of people asking for the same thing in a hundred different ways? Twenty?

[Morrígan]

Proof or get the fuck out. Now.

You'd better shut up, Berek. You or anyboby else isn't going to give me orders.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

I really don't see why this is a big deal, Oct, unless you don't actually have shit to show and you are just pursuing some kind of deluded agenda.

I didn't really want to suggest this, but can we just ban this asshole? He really don't seem to be contributing at all now, and is simply refusing to defend his hypotheses in any cogent manner, and is essentially either trolling or just spamming.