European languages before Indo-European

[Octavià]

Let's see if this keeps up (looking thru the rest of AF's wordlist)…

AF thinks the shift was actually *z- > *s- ~ *H₂-, but I'm affraid his etymologies are wrong.

"Thorn" *ab- ~ *sap-
S-initial form in Latin sappīnus (which is usually connected to the "sap" root however). No-initial form in Latin abiēs. Could work, tho the distribution isn't very good.

The Afrasian cognate is apparently *ʕafaw-/*ʕafay- 'leaf, plant'. The root *sap- also includes Welsh sybwydd 'pine' (*'thorny tree'), Germanic *saf- 'reed' and probably also Hittite sapikkusta-, sepikkusta- 'needle'.

[WeepingElf]

Let's see if this keeps up (looking thru the rest of AF's wordlist)…

AF thinks the shift was actually *z- > *s- ~ *H₂-, but I'm affraid his etymologies are wrong.

There is this curious pattern in much of your argumentation once again. You cite some stuff from someone else to support your hypothesis; but when someone points out that it has problems, you say, "Oh yes, you are right - that bloke is wrong". How convincing

[Soap]

Is sybwydd a loan? It doesnt seem to match up to the regular sound changes of Celtic. Welsh -b- is usually from *bh or gʷ or gʷh.

[Octavià]

Is sybwydd a loan? It doesnt seem to match up to the regular sound changes of Celtic. Welsh -b- is usually from *bh or gʷ or gʷh.

This is a compound from *sap- and *widu- 'tree'.

[Octavià]

AF thinks the shift was actually *z- > *s- ~ *H₂-, but I'm affraid his etymologies are wrong.

There is this curious pattern in much of your argumentation once again. You cite some stuff from someone else to support your hypothesis; but when someone points out that it has problems, you say, "Oh yes, you are right - that bloke is wrong". How convincing

Oh, no! Although he actually inspired me, my own theory is quite different from his.

[Richard W]

Is sybwydd a loan? It doesnt seem to match up to the regular sound changes of Celtic. Welsh -b- is usually from *bh or gʷ or gʷh.

This is a compound from *sap- and *widu- 'tree'.

That still doesn't explain the initial /s/ in Welsh. That points to earlier *st-.

[Soap]

Or the fact that PIE /p/ isn't reflected as Welsh /b/ normally, since /p/ disappeared in proto-Celtic, and PIE /w/ isnt reflected as Welsh /w/ because it changed to /gw/. Perhaps those are not unconditional changes, though; wydd does seem to mean tree, and if PIE had widu for tree it doesn't seem unrealistic to propose that at least that part is connected.

[Octavià]

Or the fact that PIE /p/ isn't reflected as Welsh /b/ normally, since /p/ disappeared in proto-Celtic, and PIE /w/ isnt reflected as Welsh /w/ because it changed to /gw/. Perhaps those are not unconditional changes, though; wydd does seem to mean tree, and if PIE had widu for tree it doesn't seem unrealistic to propose that at least that part is connected.

Is the first member of the compound which isn't PIE at all. *widu- is the common Celtic word for 'tree'.

[Dewrad]

Is sybwydd a loan? It doesnt seem to match up to the regular sound changes of Celtic. Welsh -b- is usually from *bh or gʷ or gʷh.

This is a compound from *sap- and *widu- 'tree'.

That still doesn't explain the initial /s/ in Welsh. That points to earlier *st-.

Not necessarily. The Brythonic languages do sporadically retain some instances of initial *s: *seχtam > saith and *saφero- > saer spring to mind fairly readily.

[Richard W]

... PIE /w/ isnt reflected as Welsh /w/ because it changed to /gw/. Perhaps those are not unconditional changes, though; wydd does seem to mean tree, and if PIE had widu for tree it doesn't seem unrealistic to propose that at least that part is connected.

The soft mutation on the second element of compounds will dispose of /g/, e.g. pinwydden 'pine tree', pinwydd 'pine trees' for a similar compound.

[Octavià]

At least with the 'salt'-word, you have it backwards: PIE had */s/, Hesperic had */h/ (or rather, something that became /h/ in the IE languages through which the names came unto us).

The fact some IE languages actually have *s > h makes me think *hal- is a remnant of some IE substrate language, most likely from the Pontic (i.e. Indo-Greek) group, given that Greek, Armenian and Old Persian had the same shift.

Thus there's no real basis to posite a new language family based entirely on this single word. However, IMHO the words which follow "Fournet's Law" are loanwords from a substrate language like the one you proposed and which I call "Hesperic" after your own.

AF thinks the shift was actually *z- > *s- ~ *H₂-, but I'm affraid his etymologies are wrong.

I've actually found an instance of "Fournet's Law" as originally proposed. This is *sol-wo- 'healthy, whole' (Latin salvus, Greek hólos) ~ *H₃ol-yo- 'all' (English all, Celtic *oljo- 'all, whole, every'), from PNC *dzzo(w)ɫV 'healthy, whole' (please notice H₃ = H₂^w)

[WeepingElf]

At least with the 'salt'-word, you have it backwards: PIE had */s/, Hesperic had */h/ (or rather, something that became /h/ in the IE languages through which the names came unto us).

The fact some IE languages actually have *s > h makes me think hal- is a remnant of some IE substrate language, most likely from the Pontic (i.e. Indo-Greek) group, given that Greek, Armenian and Old Persian had the same shift.

Thus there's no real basis to posite a new language family based entirely on this single word. However, IMHO the words which follow "Fournet's Law" are loanwords from a substrate language like the one you proposed and which I call "Hesperic" after your own.

I do not posit Hesperic based entirely on this single word. I posit it based on more than 1000 geographical names which contain several dozen roots and about a dozen suffixes, all of which look as if they were from a language that split off PIE before the latter developed the ablaut system. Also, in that hypothetical language, initial */s/ remained */s/ usually; there is no shortage of it in Hesperic names. Only the cluster */sx/ became */h/.

[Octavià]

I do not posit Hesperic based entirely on this single word. I posit it based on more than 1000 geographical names which contain several dozen roots and about a dozen suffixes, all of which look as if they were from a language that split off PIE before the latter developed the ablaut system.

I'd like to see your list of proposed roots and suffixes.

[Jetboy]

A list of names would be nice, too; I'd be interested to see them.

[WeepingElf]

OK. Here are the roots I could find quickly, with conjectured meanings based on the assumption of an IE relationship:

*ag- 'drive'
*al- 'flow'
*alb- 'white'
*ar- 'stir'
*arg- 'shine'
*aw- 'spring'
*draw- 'run'
*hal- 'salt'
*is- 'move swiftly'
*kar- 'stone'
*pal- 'pour'
*sal- 'stream'
*sar- 'flow'
*saw- 'liquid'
*tar- 'quick, strong'
*war- 'rain, flow'
*wis- 'flow apart'

The suffixes are: *-ai-, *-aw-, *-an-, *-ar-, *-al-, *-ant-, *-as-, *-ast-, *-ak-, *-at-.

A name consists of a root, zero or more suffixes, and an ending which is mostly *-a, though in the Mediterranean region, can also be *-as. So you would get names such as the following:

*Alantia, now Elz, one a tributary of the Mosel, another a tributary of the Neckar, both in Germany
*Drawa, now Drava in Croatia

There are more than 1000 of these. The list is found in the paper DIe Struktur der alteuropäischen Hydronymie by Hans Krahe (1964). I am in the middle of re-catalogizing these names in order to map them, for further analysis, but don't hold your breath on that.

[Octavià]

*al- 'flow'
*sal- 'stream'

IMHO these two roots are related, *sal- is from my "Hesperic" and *al- < *H₂el- is PIE-native.

*sar- 'flow'

This seems to be of ultimate Vasco-Caucasian origin (e.g. Spanish chorro 'jet' and Basque i-turri 'spring'), possibly related to the above ones with a shift l > r.

*kar- 'stone'

IMHO this is a Vasco-Caucasian loanword (PNC *GwerV 'stone') found in Basque harri 'stone' < *karr-.

IMHO roots with initial *a- are from PIE *H₂e-.

[WeepingElf]

*al- 'flow'
*sal- 'stream'

IMHO these two roots are related, *sal- is from my "Hesperic" and *al- < *H₂el- is PIE-native.

"Your "Hesperic"" is something else than my Hesperic. You should give it another name to avoid confusion.

*sar- 'flow'

This seems to be of ultimate Vasco-Caucasian origin, possibly related to above ones.

*kar- 'stone'

IMHO this is a Vasco-Caucasian loanword (PNC *GwerV 'stone') found in Basque harri 'stone' < *karr-.

Maybe. I would not rule out loans from Mesolithic European languages in Hesperic at all.

IMHO roots with initial *a- are from PIE *H₂e-.

Yes. The laryngeal was lost either in Hesperic already, or in the IE languages after they had reached western Europe and adopted the names.

[Octavià]

"Your "Hesperic"" is something else than my Hesperic. You should give it another name to avoid confusion.

I propose you a contest: the one who actually convinces people here of the validity of his respective proposal would retain ownership of the name.

*kar- 'stone'

IMHO this is a Vasco-Caucasian loanword (PNC *GwerV 'stone') found in Basque harri 'stone' < *karr-.

Maybe. I would not rule out loans from Mesolithic European languages in Hesperic at all.

Possibly isn't "Hesperic" at all, as it isn't found in OEH. There's no evidence ALL the roots you listed should belong to a single language.

[WeepingElf]

"Your "Hesperic"" is something else than my Hesperic. You should give it another name to avoid confusion.

I propose you a contest: the one who actually convinces people here would retain ownership of the name.

The usual rule is that the one who uses the name first retains "ownership" of the name. Using a name coined by someone else for an entity which isn't even the same as the one the name was meant to represent only causes confusion, and is to be avoided.

*kar- 'stone'

IMHO this is a Vasco-Caucasian loanword (PNC *GwerV 'stone') found in Basque harri 'stone' < *karr-.

Maybe. I would not rule out loans from Mesolithic European languages in Hesperic at all.

Possibly isn't "Hesperic" at all, as it isn't found in OEH. There's no evidence ALL the roots you listed should belong to a single language.

Indeed, I am not yet sure that all these names are of the same origin. But instead of making apodictic statements about prehistoric languages and bending the facts when they won't play ball, I actually examine the evidence in order to find out things I previously didn't know. It may well turn out out in the cause of my mapping that some roots or suffixes cluster in particular areas, which would indicate that they are from languages spoken only in those areas.

[Octavià]

I propose you a contest: the one who actually convinces people here would retain ownership of the name.

The usual rule is that the one who uses the name first retains "ownership" of the name. Using a name coined by someone else for an entity which isn't even the same as the one the name was meant to represent only causes confusion, and is to be avoided.

Then I'm going to use the provisional term "West European".

Indeed, I am not yet sure that all these names are of the same origin. But instead of making apodictic statements about prehistoric languages and bending the facts when they won't play ball, I actually examine the evidence in order to find out things I previously didn't know.

I disagree. It's you who has posited a cluster *sx with no macro-comparative (i.e. external) supporting evidence. On the contrary, I always use that evidence in my proposals.

[WeepingElf]

I propose you a contest: the one who actually convinces people here would retain ownership of the name.

The usual rule is that the one who uses the name first retains "ownership" of the name. Using a name coined by someone else for an entity which isn't even the same as the one the name was meant to represent only causes confusion, and is to be avoided.

Then I'm going to use the provisional term "West European".

A rather unspecific name, but better than hijacking "Hesperic".

Indeed, I am not yet sure that all these names are of the same origin. But instead of making apodictic statements about prehistoric languages and bending the facts when they won't play ball, I actually examine the evidence in order to find out things I previously didn't know.

I disagree. It's you who has posited a cluster *sx with no macro-comparative (i.e. external) evidence. On the contrary, I always use that evidence in my proposals.

I posited the cluster *sx chiefly on Indo-European evidence, isn't that good enough? And if that is supported by Hesperic evidence (the Hesperic word has */h/, distinct from both */s/ < PEur */s/ and */Ø/ < PEur */x/), the better! I have to admit that this is a fairly adventurous construction, and I am not entirely sure of this; I consider it a mere possibilty, and I don't see how this is weaker than your "Vasco-Caucasian" etymologies.

[Octavià]

I disagree. It's you who has posited a cluster *sx with no macro-comparative (i.e. external) evidence. On the contrary, I always use that evidence in my proposals.

I posited the cluster *sx chiefly on Indo-European evidence, isn't that good enough?
And if that is supported by Hesperic evidence (the Hesperic word has */h/, distinct from both */s/ < PEur */s/ and */Ø/ < PEur */x/), the better!

You're apparently ignoring that some IE languages have *s > h, so it's simpler to suppose this *hal- is simply a reflex of PIE *sa(:)l- rather than inventing an "Europic" root *sxal-. This is an application of Occam's Razor.

I have to admit that this is a fairly adventurous construction, and I am not entirely sure of this;

Well, that tells everything

consider it a mere possibilty, and I don't see how this is weaker than your "Vasco-Caucasian" etymologies.

Well, I've given an etymology for PIE *sa(:)l- using predictable sound laws which are also applicable to other words.

[Jetboy]

But if we had an s > h rule, how could roots such as *sar- *sal- and *saw- exist? Wouldn't they be **har- **hal- and **haw- ?

[Octavià]

But if we had an s > h rule, how could roots such as *sar- *sal- and *saw- exist? Wouldn't they be **har- **hal- and **haw- ?

This is just one of the problems of Jörg's (WeepingElf) "Hesperic", namely the impossibility ALL these roots could belong to a single language. Putting aside *hal-, the rest of roots listed by him can be found in PIE etymological dictionaries like Mallory & Adams' (although IMHO some of them are ultimately substrate loanwords). This indicates the languages represented in the OEH belong to the IE familiy, although surely they come from an earlier split than the historically attested languages.

I've referred Jörg to the work of the Spanish IE-ist Francisco Villar, as it isn't necessary to reinvent the wheel.

[WeepingElf]

But if we had an s > h rule, how could roots such as *sar- *sal- and *saw- exist? Wouldn't they be **har- **hal- and **haw- ?

This is just one of the problems of Jörg's (WeepingElf) "Hesperic", namely the impossibility ALL these roots could belong to a single language.

That's a strawman. Hesperic doesn't have an s > h rule. Initial */s/ is usually unchanged; *hal- is a special case because the /s/ is followed by a /x/, which causes velarization of the /s/ before it disappears. Is that so hard to understand?

Putting aside *hal-, the rest of roots listed by him can be found in PIE etymological dictionaries like Mallory & Adams' (although IMHO some of them are ultimately substrate loanwords). This indicates the languages represented in the OEH belong to the IE familiy, although surely they come from an earlier split than the historically attested languages.

Which is pretty much the exact thing I assume. It is merely a matter of definition whether one considers Hesperic "the first branch of IE to split off" or "the closest relative of IE". I prefer the name "Europic" for this wider sort of IE because the protolanguage is in many ways different from the "classical" PIE found in the various handbooks. It is an agglutinating active/stative language without ablaut, corresponding to Adrados's "IE I". I even briefly considered the idea that Hesperic split off about the same time as Anatolian, but Hesperic appears to be even more archaic than the latter, so it broke off even earlier.

I've referred Jörg to the work of the Spanish IE-ist Francisco Villar, as it isn't necessary to reinvent the wheel.

It is indeed not necessary to reinvent the wheel. I'll go and find out. But don't say "Villar is a crackpot" when it turns out that he doesn't support your hypothesis