Proto-Indo-European Lexicon

[Arzena]

Perhaps the strongest argument against a post-Neolithic dating is PIE lacks a common lexicon relating to farming. most of it being independently borrowed by IE branches.

I'm all agog to know what handwaving you're going to invoke to bypass all those securely reconstructed vocabulary items related to agriculture and pastoralism.

I'm sure you could give me some examples.

Here, I can give two from here:

WHEEL: from P.Gmc. *khwekhwlan, *khwegwlan (cf. O.N. hvel, O.Swed. hiughl, O.Fris. hwel, M.Du. weel), from PIE *k(w)e-k(w)lo- "wheel, circle" (cf. O.C.S. kolo "wheel"), a reduplicated form from base *k(w)el- "to go round"

HORSE: replaced Old English eoh from PIE *h₁éḱwos

RIDE: O.E. ridan "ride" (as on horseback), "move forward, rock" (class I strong verb; past tense rad, pp. riden), from P.Gmc. *ridanan (cf. O.N. riða, O.Fris. rida, M.Du. riden, Ger. reiten), from PIE *reidh- "to ride" (cf. O.Ir. riadaim "I travel," O.Gaul. reda "chariot").

Chariot is from an augmentive of char from Latin carrum orig. "two-wheeled Celtic war chariot," from Gaul. karros, from PIE *krsos, from base *kers- "to run."

[marconatrix]

Words may diffuse, yes, but following the sound changes that language went through? Dude.

Do you know how the word football is rendered in various languages other than English?

Good way of not addressing the issue.

Well its just possible in this case, assuming that 'foot' and 'ball' had been inherited from a common proto-language, that borrowing languages that translated the term might appear to have inherited the compound

[marconatrix]

(EDIT: It would be so cool if you could somehow demonstrate PIE pedh- bhel- > brazilian portuguese /fut_Sib~ao/ through regular sound changes...or something)

Can you be sure it wasn't acquired from the Tupi substratum?

[gsandi]

Perhaps the strongest argument against a post-Neolithic dating is PIE lacks a common lexicon relating to farming. most of it being independently borrowed by IE branches.

I'm all agog to know what handwaving you're going to invoke to bypass all those securely reconstructed vocabulary items related to agriculture and pastoralism.

I'm sure you could give me some examples.

Others have given perfectly good examples, and there are many more. 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.

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.

[Colzie]

*kwekwlos is clearly from *gwVrkwVl, which also gives Basque gurpil

[Etherman]

I'm sure you could give me some examples.

*Hyeug "yoke" is found in every language except Albanian.

*seH1i "to sow" found in every language except Albanian and Avestan.

*adhes "axe" found in Italic, Germanic, Sanskrit, and Hittite.

*ok(et) "to furrow, harrow" found in Italic, Celtic, Germanic, Baltic, Greek, and Hittite.

*pork^ "pig" found in Italic, Celtic, Germanic, Baltic, Slavic, and Iranian.

*suH "pig" found in Italic, Celtic, Albanian, Germanic, Slavic, Greek, Avestan, Sanskrit, and Tocharian.

*wein "wine" found in Hittite, Armenian, Greek, Slavic, Germanic, Italic, Celtic, and Albanian.

*gwerHun "millstone" found in Sanskrit, Armenian, Slavic, Baltic, Germanic, and Celtic.

*molH "to mill" found in Hittite, Tocharian, Armenian, Greek, Slavic, Baltic, Germanic, Italic, Celtic, Albanian.

I'm sure you can find lots more widely spread terms indicating agriculture if you look.

[Sleinad Flar]

Be careful with that 'wine' example. Germanic did loan this from Latin, and Slavic in turn from Gothic. This leaves Celtic, Italic, Albanian, Greek, Anatolian an Armenian, all adjacent languages. I wouldn't be surprised if this was a Wanderwort.

[Octaviano]

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.

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'.

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.

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

[Octaviano]

*pork^ "pig" found in Italic, Celtic, Germanic, Baltic, Slavic, and Iranian.

PIE *pork'o- 'piglet' (not 'pig'!!) is a Neolithic Wanderwort whose ultimate origin is possibly Austronesian *beRek 'domesticated pig'.

*suH "pig" found in Italic, Celtic, Albanian, Germanic, Slavic, Greek, Avestan, Sanskrit, and Tocharian.

By contrast, PIE *su:- (or rather *suw-?) 'pig' is surely a native PIE word, whose only cognates are Kartvelian *eSw- and Western Romance (including Basque) and substratic Berber *kus-. A Paleolithic root, then.

*wein "wine" found in Hittite, Armenian, Greek, Slavic, Germanic, Italic, Celtic, and Albanian.

A Neolithic cultural loanword from Semitic *wajn-.

All of you should bear in mind that not all the roots reconstructed for PIE are native nor have the same time-depth.

[Niedokonany]

Be careful with that 'wine' example. Germanic did loan this from Latin, and Slavic in turn from Gothic.

Is there any hard phonetic or morphological evidence for this? E.g. Brückner considered this a direct loan from Balkan Latin to Slavic, and Vasmer doesn't exclude the possibility it's inherited (although says that a borrowing is more likely for semantic reasons).

[Octaviano]

*kwekwlos is clearly from *gwVrkwVl, which also gives Basque gurpil

Basque gurpil, burpil 'wheel; cart' is a compound from gurdi, burdi 'cart' (whose combinatory form is gurt-, burt-) and *bil 'round'. The first member is related to PNC *k’wVrk’V 'something round or rotating', a root also found in Latin circus 'circle' and Greek kírkos, kríkos 'ring'.

[Octaviano]

RIDE: O.E. ridan "ride" (as on horseback), "move forward, rock" (class I strong verb; past tense rad, pp. riden), from P.Gmc. *ridanan (cf. O.N. riða, O.Fris. rida, M.Du. riden, Ger. reiten), from PIE *reidh- "to ride" (cf. O.Ir. riadaim "I travel," O.Gaul. reda "chariot").

I'm affraid this isn't a PIE root but a Celtic-Germanic isogloss probably related to PNC *tɬwɨ:ri / *rɨ:tɬwi 'wheel, vehicle'. The former variant could be related to English lorry.

The similarity of this root with PIE *retH2- 'to run' ~ *rótH2o/eHa- 'wheel' (a duplicated entry in Mallory & Adams) is striking (PIE *tH2 would correspond to PNC *tɬ).

[Åge Kruger]

RIDE: O.E. ridan "ride" (as on horseback), "move forward, rock" (class I strong verb; past tense rad, pp. riden), from P.Gmc. *ridanan (cf. O.N. riða, O.Fris. rida, M.Du. riden, Ger. reiten), from PIE *reidh- "to ride" (cf. O.Ir. riadaim "I travel," O.Gaul. reda "chariot").

I'm affraid this isn't a PIE root but a Celtic-Germanic isogloss related to PNC *tKwI:ri / *rI:tKwi 'wheel, vehicle' (tK stands for a voiceless lateral affricate). The former variant could be related to English lorry.

The similarity of this root with PIE *retH2- 'to run' ~ *rótH2o/eH2/4- 'wheel' (a duplicated entry in Mallory & Adams) is striking.

But is it consistent?

[Octaviano]

What do you mean exactly?

[Åge Kruger]

What do you mean exactly?

Similarities can be striking, but does, for example, the mediovocalic sequence -tH2- always correspond to -tK-? And what about the other proposed correspondences?

[Dewrad]

Playing along for a moment, what evidence is there that these are borrowings into PIE, rather than loans from PIE into Caucasian?

[Octaviano]

Similarities can be striking, but does, for example, the mediovocalic sequence -tH2- always correspond to -tK-? And what about the other proposed correspondences?

To cut a long story short, I've been comparing Starostin's PNC with Basque and substrate loanwords in other Western European languages and I've identified at least 3 different sets of sound correspondences, each one of which I assign to a different Vasco-Caucasian group. The one I call Cantabrian has sound correspondences with PNC similar to the ones suggested by Starostin. To name an example, Basque sehi 'servant', sein 'child' < *s^eni (as well as other kinship words from the root sen-) is a Cantabrian word related to PNC *ts’än?i 'new'. This root corresponds to PIE *g^enH1- 'to beget a child, to be born', with straightforward correspondences PNC *ts’ ~ PIE *g^ and PNC *? ~ PIE *H1. This means PIE borrowed this root from a "centum" relative of Cantabrian, which would be a "satem" language.

However, sound correspondences seen in the 'wheel' words point to another Vasco-Caucasian source language, as we would be expect a velar or a palatal stop instead of a dental one.

[Åge Kruger]

Similarities can be striking, but does, for example, the mediovocalic sequence -tH2- always correspond to -tK-? And what about the other proposed correspondences?

To cut a long story short, I've been comparing Starostin's PNC with Basque and substrate loanwords in other Western European languages and I've identified at least 3 different sets of sound correspondences, each one of which I assign to a different Vasco-Caucasian group. The one I call Cantabrian has sound correspondences with PNC similar to the ones suggested by Starostin. To name an example, Basque sehi 'servant', sein 'child' < *s^eni (as well as other kinship words from the root sen-) is a Cantabrian word related to PNC *ts’än?i 'new'. This root corresponds to PIE *g^enH1- 'to beget a child, to be born', with straightforward correspondences PNC *ts’ ~ PIE *g^ and PNC *? ~ PIE *H1. This means PIE borrowed this root from a "centum" relative of Cantabrian, which would be a "satem" language.

However, sound correspondences seen in the 'wheel' words point to another Vasco-Caucasian source language, as we would be expect a velar or a palatal stop instead of a dental one.

Well, that's another correspondence, and you've given us one root to back it up. What about more roots? What about the vowels?

[Octaviano]

Playing along for a moment, what evidence is there that these are borrowings into PIE, rather than loans from PIE into Caucasian?

As most of these words are related to Neolithic technologies, names of plants, animals, etc. It's more reasonable to think the direction was into PIE rather than the other way around. On top of this, there're also many substrate items with no PIE etymology but a Vasco-Caucasian one. For example, Latin canna 'reed' is a "centum" output of PNC *Hnǝ:tts’we: ~ *tts’wǝ:nHe: 'reed, cane'. AFAIK, this root is found in PIE *nedó- 'rush' and *don- 'reed' (a Baltic-Greek isogloss). The correspondence PNC *tts’ ~ PIE *d has also been quoted by Starostin.

The correspondences (PNC *ts’ ~ PIE *g^ and PNC *tts’ ~ PIE *d) between PNC glottalized consonants and PIE voiced ones support the so-called glottalic theory. That is, *g^, *d would actually have been *k^’, *t’.

[Sleinad Flar]

Be careful with that 'wine' example. Germanic did loan this from Latin, and Slavic in turn from Gothic.

Is there any hard phonetic or morphological evidence for this? E.g. Brückner considered this a direct loan from Balkan Latin to Slavic, and Vasmer doesn't exclude the possibility it's inherited (although says that a borrowing is more likely for semantic reasons).

To be honest, I wasn't so sure about the Gothic > Slavic loan (I got it from Pokorny of all places...), but I'm quite sure of the Latin > Germanic one.

[phoenix]

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.

He is the reason why I had to confirm all my replies of my blog before they get posted to the public, because he wouldn't stop insulting other readers.

[linguoboy]

[As most of these words are related to Neolithic technologies, names of plants, animals, etc. It's more reasonable to think the direction was into PIE rather than the other way around.

Actually, he said "what evidence", not "what new ways can you find to beg the question".

HTH, HAND.

[Tiamat]

Playing along for a moment, what evidence is there that these are borrowings into PIE, rather than loans from PIE into Caucasian?

As most of these words are related to Neolithic technologies, names of plants, animals, etc. It's more reasonable to think the direction was into PIE rather than the other way around. On top of this, there're also many substrate items with no PIE etymology but a Vasco-Caucasian one. For example, Latin canna 'reed' is a "centum" output of PNC *Hnǝ:tts’we: ~ *tts’wǝ:nHe: 'reed, cane'. AFAIK, this root is found in PIE *nedó- 'rush' and *don- 'reed' (a Baltic-Greek isogloss). The correspondence PNC *tts’ ~ PIE *d has also been quoted by Starostin.

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).

[Morrígan]

Get out of my thread, Octaviano.
If you want to discuss you poorly supported hypothesis, and make wild assertions, either do it on your blog, or start your own thread.

[Octaviano]

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