European languages before Indo-European

[Morrígan]

Woops; looks like my brain exploded. Yeah, we should expect to find peplos in Greek, but I don't know about the dialetal variation in labiovelar developments in Greek. Could be a loan from another Greek dialect.

In Greek, *k^w > p except before front vowels, where it gives t. So the only way to get ku is from *ku.

This is true, in Attic. Aeolic changes *kʷ → p unconditionally, and Ionic changes *kʷ → k before a,o (not just u, as in Attic).

[Octavià]

Woops; looks like my brain exploded. Yeah, we should expect to find peplos in Greek, but I don't know about the dialetal variation in labiovelar developments in Greek. Could be a loan from another Greek dialect.

In Greek, *k^w > p except before front vowels, where it gives t. So the only way to get ku is from *ku.

This is true, in Attic. Aeolic changes *kʷ → p unconditionally, and Ionic changes *kʷ → k before a,o (not just u, as in Attic).

This is why the reflexes of *k^wel- ~ *k^wol- ~ *k^wəl- in Greek (Attic) either have /p/ like in pólos or /t/ like in télos.

My conclusion is that kúklos can't be a native Greek word (cfr. Phrygian kíklē 'cart (constellation)') in any dialect, so it must be a loanword.

Remember that in non-std IE theories (e.g. Europic), labiovelars are a secondary development: *Ku > *K^w, the older stage being kept in Anatolian and Italic (yes, I know I'm out of ortodoxy!).

[dhok]

Woops; looks like my brain exploded. Yeah, we should expect to find peplos in Greek, but I don't know about the dialetal variation in labiovelar developments in Greek. Could be a loan from another Greek dialect.

In Greek, *k^w > p except before front vowels, where it gives t. So the only way to get ku is from *ku.

This is true, in Attic. Aeolic changes *kʷ → p unconditionally, and Ionic changes *kʷ → k before a,o (not just u, as in Attic).

This is why the reflexes of *k^wel- ~ *k^wol- ~ *k^wəl- in Greek (Attic) either have /p/ like in pólos or /t/ like in télos.

My conclusion is that kúklos can't be a native Greek word (cfr. Phrygian kíklē 'cart (constellation)') in any dialect, so it must be a loanword.

Remember that in non-std IE theories (e.g. Europic), labiovelars are a secondary development: *Ku > *K^w, the older stage being kept in Anatolian and Italic (yes, I know I'm out of ortodoxy!).

Not necessarily; what about a theoretical dialect that had 0-grade ablaut on the e, which became *k^wklos, which later changed to kúklos?

[Richard W]

Not necessarily; what about a theoretical dialect that had 0-grade ablaut on the e, which became *k^wklos, which later changed to kúklos?

But would that be a regular correspondence? Would the vocalisation of the rounding explain the accent retraction?

[Legion]

Not necessarily; what about a theoretical dialect that had 0-grade ablaut on the e, which became *k^wklos, which later changed to kúklos?

But would that be a regular correspondence? Would the vocalisation of the rounding explain the accent retraction?

Irregular sound changes do happen, all irregularities do not have to be from a foreign substrate…

[Octavià]

Getting back to the original topic of the thread, some European languages have substrate loanwords of Semitic etymology. For example, Germanic *lipp- and Latin labrum (vulgar labium) 'lip'), from which some IE-ists reconstruct a root *leb-, can be linked to PSem *ɬa(n)p-(at-) 'lip' (-at- is the PSem feminine suffix), where *ɬ is a voiceless lateral fricative.

IMHO, this means at least some of Neolithic farmers who colonized Europe spoke languages related to Semitic.

[WeepingElf]

Getting back to the original topic of the thread, some European languages have substrate loanwords of Semitic etymology. For example, Germanic *lipp- and Latin labrum (vulgar labium) 'lip'), from which some IE-ists reconstruct a root *leb-, can be linked to PSem *ɬa(n)p-(at-) 'lip' (-at- is the PSem feminine suffix), where *ɬ is a voiceless lateral fricative.

IMHO, this means at least some of Neolithic farmers who colonized Europe spoke languages related to Semitic.

I don't know about this specific word, but there are some IE words that resemble Semitic words, which may have been Wanderwörter of the Eastern Mediterranean region, borrowed from language to language together with the spread of agriculture. An Afro-Asiatic language in Neolithic Europe is not impossible, though I would not rush at such a conclusion from just a few similar-looking words.

[jal]

*leb-, can be linked to PSem *ɬa(n)p-(at-)[/url][/b] 'lip'

If this were Wikipedia, I'd add a fact-tag. Sure, those forms look superficially alike, but we've all read this, don't we?

this means at least some of Neolithic farmers who colonized Europe spoke languages related to Semitic.

Based on a single word that superficially looks like another word? Come on T., even you can do better than that...


JAL

[Octavià]

this means at least some of Neolithic farmers who colonized Europe spoke languages related to Semitic.

Based on a single word that superficially looks like another word? Come on T., even you can do better than that...

There're other examples as well, so don't judge me so badly:

For example, *kapro- 'he-goat' (Greek kápros 'boar', Latin caper 'he-goat', Celtic *gabro- 'goat'), a substrate loanword often considered to be a PIE word, is related to Semitic *ɣupr-/*ʕupr- 'young of deer', with Celtic voiced velar *g reflecting Semitic *ɣ/*ʕ.

[WeepingElf]

this means at least some of Neolithic farmers who colonized Europe spoke languages related to Semitic.

Based on a single word that superficially looks like another word? Come on T., even you can do better than that...

There're other examples as well, so don't judge me so badly:

For example, *kapro- 'he-goat' (Greek kápros 'boar', Latin caper 'he-goat', Celtic *gabro- 'goat'), a substrate loanword often considered to be a PIE word, is related to Semitic *ɣupr-/*ʕupr- 'young of deer', with Celtic voiced velar *g reflecting Semitic *ɣ/*ʕ.

A goat is not a boar, and not a deer either. Only urbanites could confuse all those animals. Try harder.

[Octavià]

For example, *kapro- 'he-goat' (Greek kápros 'boar', Latin caper 'he-goat', Celtic *gabro- 'goat'), a substrate loanword often considered to be a PIE word, is related to Semitic *ɣupr-/*ʕupr- 'young of deer', with Celtic voiced velar *g reflecting Semitic *ɣ/*ʕ.

A goat is not a boar, and not a deer either. Only urbanites could confuse all those animals. Try harder.

You should tell that to the Indo-Europeanists who actually lumped these words together, not me

[WeepingElf]

For example, *kapro- 'he-goat' (Greek kápros 'boar', Latin caper 'he-goat', Celtic *gabro- 'goat'), a substrate loanword often considered to be a PIE word, is related to Semitic *ɣupr-/*ʕupr- 'young of deer', with Celtic voiced velar *g reflecting Semitic *ɣ/*ʕ.

A goat is not a boar, and not a deer either. Only urbanites could confuse all those animals. Try harder.

You should tell that to the Indo-Europeanists who actually lumped these words together, not me

I told you because it is you, not the Indo-Europeanists, who adduces this "etymology" as evidence for Semitic in Neolithic Europe. I have noticed this strange behaviour of yours several times. You cite a problematic etymology as evidence for your hypothesis; when someone else points out the problem, you say, "Yes, I know that the etymology is wrong; but don't tell me - I haven't come up with it". Bullfrogs. If you know that it is faulty, you must not use it as evidence. That is playing foul: "I know it is wrong but I'll see if I can get away with it". That's not science; that's make-believe. Do you now realize that you won't ever convince anybody with that kind of game you are playing?

Of course, this etymology is bogus. The Greek and the Latin word match in form but not in meaning; the Celtic and Latin words match in meaning but not in form.

[Octavià]

I told you because it is you, not the Indo-Europeanists, who adduces this "etymology" as evidence for Semitic in Neolithic Europe. I have noticed this strange behaviour of yours several times. You cite a problematic etymology as evidence for your hypothesis; when someone else points out the problem, you say, "Yes, I know that the etymology is wrong; but don't tell me - I haven't come up with it". Bullfrogs. If you know that it is faulty, you must not use it as evidence. That is playing foul: "I know it is wrong but I'll see if I can get away with it".

I don't think the etymology is wrong, but rather on the contrary (see below).

Of course, this etymology is bogus. The Greek and the Latin word match in form but not in meaning; the Celtic and Latin words match in meaning but not in form.

What these "mismatches" tell us is this isn't a native IE (that is, inherited from PIE) word but a Wanderwort. Notice that the Celtic voiced stop is closer to the reconstructed Proto-Semitic form.

[Shm Jay]

What these "mismatches" tell us is this isn't a native IE (that is, inherited from PIE) word but a Wanderwort. Notice that the Celtic voiced stop is closer to the reconstructed Proto-Semitic form.

Then why would every different Indo-European tribe have used the word to mean a different animal, especially since these were animals that were native to their areas?

[Octavià]

What these "mismatches" tell us is this isn't a native IE (that is, inherited from PIE) word but a Wanderwort. Notice that the Celtic voiced stop is closer to the reconstructed Proto-Semitic form.

Then why would every different Indo-European tribe have used the word to mean a different animal, especially since these were animals that were native to their areas?

Possibly because they borrowed the word from the people who previously inhabited these areas.

[Shm Jay]

Probably because they borrowed the word from the people who previously inhabited the area,

What, the previous inhabitants couldn’t tell the animals apart either?

[Octavià]

The same word could have been used to name different animals in different areas/habitats. That's by no means uncommon.

An interesting example could be a Wanderwort relative to horses (which were domesticated in the Eurasian steppes), and whose origin is PAltaic *kúlme 'a k. of ungulate', with metathesis (*kumle). This is found in Slavic (Russian kobyla 'mare') but also in Semitic *gam(a)l- 'camel'.

[Count Iblis]

I don't know about this specific word, but there are some IE words that resemble Semitic words, which may have been Wanderwörter of the Eastern Mediterranean region, borrowed from language to language together with the spread of agriculture. An Afro-Asiatic language in Neolithic Europe is not impossible, though I would not rush at such a conclusion from just a few similar-looking words.

In Spencer Wells' The Journey of Man he notes that approx. 10,000 years ago (Wiki says 18,500 +- 3,500) there was a migration of Middle Easterners into Europe (carrying the M172 genetic marker). PAA is not much older than that.

[Count Iblis]

For example, *kapro- 'he-goat' (Greek kápros 'boar', Latin caper 'he-goat', Celtic *gabro- 'goat'), a substrate loanword often considered to be a PIE word, is related to Semitic *ɣupr-/*ʕupr- 'young of deer', with Celtic voiced velar *g reflecting Semitic *ɣ/*ʕ.

Let's not forget the Altaic *k`iap`a "a kind of young ungulate". A borrowing from Semitic to Altaic, even with IE as an intermediary, seems unlikely.

[TaylorS]

PAA was still around the Red Sea 10,000 years ago. if I had to hazard a guess what the early Anatolian farmers spoke it was probably related to the languages of the Caucasus, most likely the now-extinct Hurro-Urantian Family.

[Octavià]

For example, *kapro- 'he-goat' (Greek kápros 'boar', Latin caper 'he-goat', Celtic *gabro- 'goat'), a substrate loanword often considered to be a PIE word, is related to Semitic *ɣupr-/*ʕupr- 'young of deer', with Celtic voiced velar *g reflecting Semitic *ɣ/*ʕ.

Let's not forget the Altaic *k`iap`a "a kind of young ungulate". A borrowing from Semitic to Altaic, even with IE as an intermediary, seems unlikely.

Don't forget the above is an example of an invalid PIE root wrongly reconstructed as such by many IE-ists. And perhaps the Altaic word is unrelated to the Semitic or may be it's a distant cognate. Also Wanderwörter can travel in the opposite direction (e.g. the 'camel' word).

The similarity between the forms used to name 'deer/goat' and 'boar' seen in the IE forms it's also reflected in Arabic, which in addition to ɣafr-, ɣufr- 'young or chamois/goat' also has ʕifr-, ʕufr- 'pig, boar; piglet', which I guess correspond to IE *H₁epero- 'boar'. I guess the origin of this duality was phonosymbolism, with the voiced velar fricative ɣ for 'deer/goat' and the voiced pharyngeal ʕ for 'boar, pig'.

[Count Iblis]

Don't forget the above is an example of an invalid PIE root wrongly reconstructed as such by many IE-ists.

That's your claim, but you haven't demonstrated it to be true.

[jal]

That's your claim, but you haven't demonstrated it to be true.

That pretty much sums up each and every of T's arguments.


JAL

[Octavià]

Don't forget the above is an example of an invalid PIE root wrongly reconstructed as such by many IE-ists.

That's your claim, but you haven't demonstrated it to be true.

Actually, it was WeepingElf who showed it. Please read his post!

Of course, this etymology is bogus. The Greek and the Latin word match in form but not in meaning; the Celtic and Latin words match in meaning but not in form.

Add to this that Celtic has *g instead of the expected k. What kind of PIE root would have such "irregularities"?

[Richard W]

For example, *kapro- 'he-goat' (Greek kápros 'boar', Latin caper 'he-goat', Celtic *gabro- 'goat'), a substrate loanword often considered to be a PIE word, is related to Semitic *ɣupr-/*ʕupr- 'young of deer', with Celtic voiced velar *g reflecting Semitic *ɣ/*ʕ.

A goat is not a boar, and not a deer either. Only urbanites could confuse all those animals. Try harder

What do you think of the claim that English hog 'pig, esp. castrated boar' and English hog 'a yearling sheep not yet shorn' are cognate? My dictionaries list them as the same word, but what would lexicographers know?

More seriously, the meaning 'adolescent ungulate of food species' would fit both sets of words as the original core meaning.