On 2008-11-30 22:33, Andrew Jarrette wrote:

> (If anyone can tell me the occurrences of velars vs. palatals in LIV
> for comparison, I would greatly appreciate it.)


In LIV(2) there are:

46 roots with initial *k^
45 roots with initial *k
16 roots with initial *kW
29 roots with *k(^), *k(W) or *K, i.e. an indeterminate initial
voiceless dorsal

12 roots with initial *g^
11 roots with initial *g
15 roots with initial *gW
14 roots with *g(^), *g(W) or *G

20 roots with initial *g^H
13 roots with initial *gH
5 roots with initial *gWH
13 roots with *g(^)H, *g(W)H or *G(H)

4 roots with initial *sk^
2 roots with initial *sk^H
32 roots with initial *sk
4 roots with an uncertain dorsal after *s
no examples of initial *skW
(mobile and non-mobile *s conflated)

1 root with initial *(s)gW
1 root with initial (s)gWH

As LIV has an index a tergo, it's also easy to count the dorsals in the
root-final position:

41 *k^
60 *k
16 *kW
12 uncertain

25 *g^
44 *g
16 *gW
18 uncertain (almost exclusively *g(^))

26 *g^H
24 *gH
10 *gWH
9 uncertain (7 of them with *g(^)H)

[I can't guarantee that all the numbers are strictly correct; I was
counting the entries quickly.]

Counting dictionary entries may, however, be misleading for a variety of
reasons. For example, many of the reconstructions are regarded as
doubtful even by the LIV editors (not to mention Yours Truly), and quite
a few are restricted to one (!) or two branches. Then, even if a root is
correctly reconstructed, it does not mean that it was frequently used by
the IE-speakers. Although we have no texts in which we could count PIE
tokens rather than types, the predominance of *k^ (and even *kW) over *k
is visible in typical high-frequency items such pronouns and other
grammatical words, the IE numerals, the most securely attested
verb-roots, etc.

Piotr

***HOW TO BEHAVE ON CYBALIST***

Moderatorial Recommendations and Rules of Proper Conduct

The purpose of Cybalist is to popularise Indo-European studies and to provide a
discussion forum for people who are interested in the various linguistic,
cultural and historical aspects of IE scholarship.

Cybalist is not moderated in the strict technical sense: the moderators do not
have to see all the messages before they are posted to the members. However, as
an elementary precaution against Internet hooligans and spammers, new members
remain moderated until they start posting regularly. A 'moderated' message has
to wait for approval, which may take from a few minutes to a few hours. It may
also be rejected by a moderator if it violates our rules of proper conduct (see
below).

Our primary duty as list managers is to maintain a decent level of discussion
and to make sure that out debates are conducted in a civil manner. We reserve
the right to judge whether your postings are conducive to that purpose or not.
If we find that a particular poster's behaviour is wilfully counterproductive,
we shall react by issuing a warning off-list. If the warning has no effect, we
can restrict the poster's privileges by changing his or her status to
'moderated' for about two weeks. Recidivists may expect a longer probation
period. Since the public discussion of administrative and disciplinary problems
on Cybalist would cause undesirable distraction, any complaints, concerns or
suggestions regarding such matters should be sent to us off-list. Should anyone
prefer a public discussion of them, we have established a separate forum called
Cybalist_admin,

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist_admin/

where you can speak your mind freely before all the moderators and before
anybody alse who wishes to join that list.

----------

DON'T DO IT

Here is a list of things that are explicitly forbidden on Cybalist. Infraction
will result in disciplinary action on the moderators' part, from off-list
notification to immediate removal from Cybalist, depending on the seriousness of
the offence. It is recommended that Cybalist members should save this list for
future reference.

(1) Spam

Anyone caught spamming (that is, posting off-topic commercial advertisements or
other unwanted junk) will be removed from Cybalist without warning.

(2) Off-topic postings and pseudoscience

Since this list is devoted to Indo-European studies, the discussion of
extraneous or too general topics (e.g. other language families, the origin of
language, long-range comparison etc.) will be discouraged. There are other lists
where subjects like general linguistic, Nostratic studies, anthropology, etc.,
may be discussed more profitably. We assume that there is a nearly unanimous
consensus among the list's managers and regular posters as to what should and
what should not be discussed. While the discussion of controversial issues is
welcome on the list, there are certain limits that we should like to be
observed. In particular, we will not encourage the pursuit of pseudoscience, by
which we understand, for example, amateurish decipherments of ancient scripts,
racist theories, speculation about the language spoken in Atlantis or in the
Garden of Eden, demonstrations that Latvian and Sumerian are practically the
same language, or anything else that sinks below the level at which serious
discussion is possible.

(3) Idées fixes

Please do not treat Cybalist as your private forum. Posters who attempt to
publicise their private obsessions had better look for some other audience.
Anyone who tries to dominate the discussion by sending an immoderate number of
messages on a single topic may expect hear from the moderators off-list. In the
interest of the group we may shut down a tired thread. In such cases, if you
want to protest or ask the moderators to re-open the thread, please get in touch
with one of us off-list or write to Cybalist_admin.

(4) Flaming, trolling and ad hominem attacks

Please avoid deliberate rudeness, aggressive language, addressing the
personalities of other members rather than their arguments, and other forms of
disruptive behaviour. Posters who seem to enjoy irritating other participants or
provoking violent exchanges will be given time out at short notice: their
posting rights may be revoked for about two weeks. If you feel provoked or
insulted by somebody else, please don't hesitate to complain to the moderators
(privately or on Cybalist_admin) rather than repay insults in kind.

(5) Flogging dead horses and reviving banned threads

We also wish to discourage attempts to resurrect a closed thread if the poster
has no fresh ideas to contribute. The list archive is searchable, and before you
raise a topic you should at least try to check if it has not been discussed in
the past months. If we find a thread objectionable and announce its termination,
any posters who want to post their final thoughts on it may do so within 24
hours. After that time, any attempt to revive a banned thread within two weeks
of its termination may be punished with a brief (one or two weeks) restriction
of the offender's posting rights.

----------

TECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS

(1) Post plain-text messages rather than HTML. Fancy backgrounds, colours and
fonts are dispensable.

(2) To minimise readability problems, use 'West European' encoding (that is, the
'Latin-1' or ISO-8859-1 character set) whenever possible. If you find it
necessary to use something more sophisticated (e.g. UTF-8), do so sparingly and
don't forget to warn the list.

(3) Avoid sending attachments with your postings. Any pictures, Word or PDF
documents, etc. that you'd like to share with other list members should be
uploaded to the Files area instead. Please remember that copyrighted materials
have to be handled without breaking the legal restrictions on their fair use.
When in doubt, consult the moderators.

(4) When responding to others' postings, quote only those fragments of the
original message that you want to reply to. In particular, do not quote whole
threads. Make sure that the quotations are properly marked, so that one can
easily see who wrote what.

(5) If your reply drifts away from the original topic, change the subject line
(e.g. 'IE loanwords in Hurrian [was: The Indo-Iranian homeland]').

The above prohibitions and recommendations are tentative and may evolve further.
We will keep you informed if we decide to modify them in the future.

Piotr Gasiorowski

What is that voj- which a vojevoda vods?
Vasmer says:'
voevátI "Krieg führen, kämpfen", s. vóin.

voevóda "Heerführer, Feldherr",
aruss. abulg. vojevoda he:gemó:n (Supr.),
bulg. vojvoda, skr. v`òjvoda,
sloven. vójvoda,
c^ech. vévoda, vejvoda "Herzog",
poln. wojewoda,
polab. våjvåda "Fürst", ||
Zu vóin, vójsko und vodítI als "Heerführer".
Meillet's (Études 209ff., RS. 8,296)
Annahme einer Lehnübersetzung aus ahd. herizogo "Herzog" ist nicht
sicher, obgleich dieses letztere als aus griech. strategós bzw.
strateláte:s übersetzt betrachtet wird, s. Edw. Schröder und Much bei
Betz PBrBtr. 67,286 (mit Liter.).
...
vóin "Krieger, Soldat",
ukr. vójin,
nruss. vojinU pl. voji,
abulg. vojinU stratió:te:s (Supr.),
bulg. vójnik "Krieger",
skr. vòjnîk,
sloven. vojník,
c^ech. slk. vojín, voják.
Ablaut: abulg. povino,ti "unterwerfen". ||
Urverw.:
lit. vejù, výti "jagen, verfolgen", vajóti iterat.,
aind. vé:ti "verfolgt, strebt zu",
avest. vayeiti "treibt, verfolgt",
lat. ve:nor, -a:ri "jagen",
anord. veiðr "Jagd",
ahd. weida "Weide, Jagd",
griech. íemai "begehre, trachte",
ir. fíad- "Wild",
lat. proelium aus *provoiliom,
s. Boisacq Mél. Pedersen 258 ff., Trautmann BS1. 345ff. M.-Endz.
4,446, Uhlenbeck Aind. Wb. 295. Dazu vojná, vójsko.
...
vojná "Krieg", ukr. vijná, russ.-ksl. vojIna, bulg. vojna, sloven.
vójna, c^ech. slk. vojna, poln. wojna, osorb. nsorb. wojna.
Zu der Sippe von vóin.
vójsko "Heer", bulg. vojska, skr. vójska, s.-ksl. vojIska stratós,
sloven. vójska, c^ech. vojsko, poln. wojsko, Urspr. *vojIsko zu vóin,
vojná.'

Cf.

'voz^dI Führer', ksl. Lehnwort,
abulg. voz^dI gegenüber aruss. voz^I, dass.,
skr. vôd', G. v`òd'a,
sloven. vòj, G. vója,
poln. wódz.
Zu vedú, vodítI.
Ursl. *vodyU, wohl alter yu-Stamm, s. Meillet MSL. 20,99.
Vgl. lit. vãdas 'Führer' (Trautmann BS1. 344).
'

What's that Slovenian form with -j- doing there?

Is there a closer relationship between Pokorny's
1. wedh- "stoßen, schlagen"
2. wedh- ... "führen;  heimführen, heiraten (vom  Manne)"
and
3. wei-, wei&-: wi:- 1. "auf etwas losgehen", einerseits "gehen,
gerade Richtung nehmen; Weg, Reihe", andererseits "worauf losgehen, es
erstreben, erjagen, ersehnen, wollen". 2. "kräftig sein";

?


Torsten

On 2008-12-01 19:09, tgpedersen wrote:

> What is that voj- which a vojevoda vods?

*vojI 'warrior' (Pol. wój, OCS, ORu. voi) < *woih1-o- (assuming the
correctness of the LIV reconstruction of the root as *weih1-). The
byform *vo(j)inU is an extension of that, with the singulative suffix
*-inU. In a compound, *woih1o- > *voje-.

LIV lists *wedH- 'führen' and *wedHh1- 'stoßen' as formally different roots.

Piotr

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "G&P" <G.and.P@...> wrote:
>
> >If anyone can tell me
> the occurrences of velars vs. palatals in LIV
>
> A rough count, based on Bird's roots (the basic roots extracted from
> Pokorny), puts initial *k' at 88, and initial *k at 166.
>
> Medially, it's *k' 13  and *k 17.
>
> There are also about 37 roots with initial *(s)k or *sk, where the
> distinction between *k' and *k should be lost (though I note I have also
> listed 8 roots in *(s)k' - either my fault, or Bird has listed them that
> way.)
>
>
>
> I also have Mann, and find it gives access to the Armenian and Albanian
> material better than Pokorny.  But the lack of an index makes it mostly
> useless.
>
>
>
> Peter
>


Thanks for the information, although it disagrees with what Piotr
summarizes about the initial occurrences in LIV.  I take it that this
in part is because Pokorny assigns any dorsal of unknown character
(palatal, velar, or labiovelar) to the velars?

I have Pokorny, at least the one available from the Internet (it is
written in a very weird half-English, half-German hodgepodge language,
and runs well over 1000 pages, and is called "the_whole_dang_file"),
and it has no index.  Does the original Pokorny have an index?  How is
this index arranged, by actual words mentioned from attested
languages?  (If it's available online or in any computer format, maybe
you could direct me to it or even download it as a file or even copy
it and send it as an attachment to my private e-mail address.)

Andrew

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> On 2008-11-30 22:33, Andrew Jarrette wrote:
>
> > (If anyone can tell me the occurrences of velars vs. palatals in LIV
> > for comparison, I would greatly appreciate it.)
>
>
> In LIV(2) there are:
>
> 46 roots with initial *k^
> 45 roots with initial *k
> 16 roots with initial *kW
> 29 roots with *k(^), *k(W) or *K, i.e. an indeterminate initial
> voiceless dorsal
>
> 12 roots with initial *g^
> 11 roots with initial *g
> 15 roots with initial *gW
> 14 roots with *g(^), *g(W) or *G
>
> 20 roots with initial *g^H
> 13 roots with initial *gH
> 5 roots with initial *gWH
> 13 roots with *g(^)H, *g(W)H or *G(H)
>
> 4 roots with initial *sk^
> 2 roots with initial *sk^H
> 32 roots with initial *sk
> 4 roots with an uncertain dorsal after *s
> no examples of initial *skW
> (mobile and non-mobile *s conflated)
>
> 1 root with initial *(s)gW
> 1 root with initial (s)gWH
>
> As LIV has an index a tergo, it's also easy to count the dorsals in the
> root-final position:
>
> 41 *k^
> 60 *k
> 16 *kW
> 12 uncertain
>
> 25 *g^
> 44 *g
> 16 *gW
> 18 uncertain (almost exclusively *g(^))
>
> 26 *g^H
> 24 *gH
> 10 *gWH
> 9 uncertain (7 of them with *g(^)H)
>
> [I can't guarantee that all the numbers are strictly correct; I was
> counting the entries quickly.]
>
> Counting dictionary entries may, however, be misleading for a
variety of
> reasons. For example, many of the reconstructions are regarded as
> doubtful even by the LIV editors (not to mention Yours Truly), and
quite
> a few are restricted to one (!) or two branches. Then, even if a
root is
> correctly reconstructed, it does not mean that it was frequently
used by
> the IE-speakers. Although we have no texts in which we could count PIE
> tokens rather than types, the predominance of *k^ (and even *kW)
over *k
> is visible in typical high-frequency items such pronouns and other
> grammatical words, the IE numerals, the most securely attested
> verb-roots, etc.
>
> Piotr
>


Thank you for replying (and especially if you actually did all the
counting!).  So you're probably still of the opinion that IE didn't
really have distinct palatal and velar series (I know that at one
point in past messages you have said that you believe they may have
been distinct, but were velars vs. uvulars, not palatals vs. velars --
do you still think this is the most probable scenario for PIE?).  The
reason why I ask is because in order for me to decide which of my IE
conlangs I will fully develop (and I will choose the most believable
and plausible one), I need to know whether palatals and velars were
truly distinct -- which will help determine the believability and
plausibility of the phonology of one conlang over another.  I did
search the archives for all previous messages on this topic, but there
was no conclusive statement from anyone about the legitimacy of the
palatal:velar distinction.  I know I'm dredging up an old beaten topic
and that conlangs have little to no importance to almost all people,
so if you don't bother to reply it's OK, you've given me a lot of
information already.

Andrew

On 2008-12-01 23:41, Andrew Jarrette wrote:

> Thank you for replying (and especially if you actually did all the
> counting!). So you're probably still of the opinion that IE didn't
> really have distinct palatal and velar series (I know that at one
> point in past messages you have said that you believe they may have
> been distinct, but were velars vs. uvulars, not palatals vs. velars --
> do you still think this is the most probable scenario for PIE?).

I prefer to keep an open mind as regards the phonetic details. I believe
it's likely that *k was a uvular and *k^ a plain velar at least at some
pre-PIE stage. However, even in PIE itself, the *k-series dorsals seem
to have triggered a-colouring quite frequently, as if they had patterned
with *h2. This happened even to the final vowel of thematic stems when
extended with the suffix *-ko- (note the absence of Brugmann's Law in
Skt. -a-ka-, pointing to *-a-ko-). I wouldn't expect such influence from
a plain velar.

Piotr

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> On 2008-12-01 19:09, tgpedersen wrote:
>
> > What is that voj- which a vojevoda vods?
>
> *vojI 'warrior' (Pol. wój, OCS, ORu. voi) < *woih1-o- (assuming the
> correctness of the LIV reconstruction of the root as *weih1-). The
> byform *vo(j)inU is an extension of that, with the singulative
> suffix *-inU. In a compound, *woih1o- > *voje-.

Any relation of the suffix of Gmc kindin-, druhtin-, þiudan-?


> LIV lists *wedH- 'führen' and *wedHh1- 'stoßen' as formally
> different roots.

FWIW.

Any comment on the Sloven. vòj, G. vója "leader", as contrasted with
the forms in -d-?


Torsten

--- On Mon, 12/1/08, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

> From: tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...>
> Subject: [tied] Vojing and voding
> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Monday, December 1, 2008, 1:09 PM
> What is that voj- which a vojevoda vods?
> Vasmer says:'
> voevátI "Krieg führen, kämpfen", s. vóin.
>
> voevóda "Heerführer, Feldherr",
> aruss. abulg. vojevoda he:gemó:n (Supr.),
> bulg. vojvoda, skr. v`òjvoda,
> sloven. vójvoda,
> c^ech. vévoda, vejvoda "Herzog",
> poln. wojewoda,
> polab. våjvåda "Fürst", ||
> Zu vóin, vójsko und vodítI als "Heerführer".
> Meillet's (Études 209ff., RS. 8,296)
> Annahme einer Lehnübersetzung aus ahd. herizogo
> "Herzog" ist nicht
> sicher, obgleich dieses letztere als aus griech. strategós
> bzw.
> strateláte:s übersetzt betrachtet wird, s. Edw. Schröder
> und Much bei
> Betz PBrBtr. 67,286 (mit Liter.).
> ...
> vóin "Krieger, Soldat",
> ukr. vójin,
> nruss. vojinU pl. voji,
> abulg. vojinU stratió:te:s (Supr.),
> bulg. vójnik "Krieger",
> skr. vòjnîk,
> sloven. vojník,
> c^ech. slk. vojín, voják.
> Ablaut: abulg. povino,ti "unterwerfen". ||
> Urverw.:
> lit. vejù, výti "jagen, verfolgen", vajóti
> iterat.,
> aind. vé:ti "verfolgt, strebt zu",
> avest. vayeiti "treibt, verfolgt",
> lat. ve:nor, -a:ri "jagen",
> anord. veiðr "Jagd",
> ahd. weida "Weide, Jagd",
> griech. íemai "begehre, trachte",
> ir. fíad- "Wild",
> lat. proelium aus *provoiliom,
> s. Boisacq Mél. Pedersen 258 ff., Trautmann BS1. 345ff.
> M.-Endz.
> 4,446, Uhlenbeck Aind. Wb. 295. Dazu vojná, vójsko.
> ...
> vojná "Krieg", ukr. vijná, russ.-ksl. vojIna,
> bulg. vojna, sloven.
> vójna, c^ech. slk. vojna, poln. wojna, osorb. nsorb.
> wojna.
> Zu der Sippe von vóin.
> vójsko "Heer", bulg. vojska, skr. vójska,
> s.-ksl. vojIska stratós,
> sloven. vójska, c^ech. vojsko, poln. wojsko, Urspr.
> *vojIsko zu vóin,
> vojná.'
>
> Cf.
>
> 'voz^dI Führer', ksl. Lehnwort,
> abulg. voz^dI gegenüber aruss. voz^I, dass.,
> skr. vôd', G. v`òd'a,
> sloven. vòj, G. vója,
> poln. wódz.
> Zu vedú, vodítI.
> Ursl. *vodyU, wohl alter yu-Stamm, s. Meillet MSL. 20,99.
> Vgl. lit. vãdas 'Führer' (Trautmann BS1. 344).
> '
>
> What's that Slovenian form with -j- doing there?
>
> Is there a closer relationship between Pokorny's
> 1. wedh- "stoßen, schlagen"
> 2. wedh- ... "führen;  heimführen, heiraten (vom
> Manne)"
> and
> 3. wei-, wei&-: wi:- 1. "auf etwas losgehen",
> einerseits "gehen,
> gerade Richtung nehmen; Weg, Reihe", andererseits
> "worauf losgehen, es
> erstreben, erjagen, ersehnen, wollen". 2.
> "kräftig sein";
>
> ?
>
>
> Torsten

Isn't Voivod usually explained as "marcher lord", i.e. "war lord"? See OED

At 5:31:53 PM on Monday, December 1, 2008, Andrew Jarrette
wrote:

> I have Pokorny, at least the one available from the
> Internet (it is written in a very weird half-English,
> half-German hodgepodge language, and runs well over 1000
> pages, and is called "the_whole_dang_file"), and it has no
> index.

<http://www.flaez.ch/pok/> has an index of the words in
Pokorny, both attested and reconstructed; each word is
followed by the root(s) under which it is mentioned.  These
roots used to be links to the Leiden database, but they
haven't been updated since the server was at
<iiasnt.leidenuniv.nl>.

Brian

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> FWIW.
>
> Any comment on the Sloven. vòj, G. vója "leader", as contrasted with
> the forms in -d-?
>
>
> Torsten
>

Isn't *dj > j regular in Slovenian?

Anders

On 2008-12-02 04:59, Rick McCallister wrote:

> Isn't Voivod usually explained as "marcher lord", i.e. "war lord"? See OED

No, it's a transparent compound meaning 'warrior-leader', not unlike OE
heretoga and Ger. Herzog.

Piotr

On 2008-12-02 00:34, tgpedersen wrote:

> Any relation of the suffix of Gmc kindin-, druhtin-, þiudan-?

I don't think so. The Slavic suffix has a long vowel. A connection with
*(ed)inU 'one' can be suspected (note that originally it occurred only
in the singular). Besides, *-inU is semantically empty in the sense that
e.g. Pol. Grek and Greczyn both mean 'a Greek', whereas the Germanic
suffix in question forms words with derived meanings.

> Any comment on the Sloven. vòj, G. vója "leader", as contrasted with
> the forms in -d-?

Slovene has a regular development of *dj > j, attested already in the
10th c. (the Freising Manuscripts). This change is unique to Slovene.

Piotr

--- On Tue, 12/2/08, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:

> From: Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
> Subject: Re: [tied] Vojing and voding
> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2008, 2:24 AM
> On 2008-12-02 04:59, Rick McCallister wrote:
>
> > Isn't Voivod usually explained as "marcher
> lord", i.e. "war lord"? See OED
>
> No, it's a transparent compound meaning
> 'warrior-leader', not unlike OE
> heretoga and Ger. Herzog.
>
> Piotr

I agree, but the meaning of the word in English is "Marcher lord, warlord",
right? Voivod does exist in English as a loanword

On 2008-12-02 12:03, Rick McCallister wrote:

> I agree, but the meaning of the word in English is "Marcher lord,
> warlord", right? Voivod does exist in English as a loanword

Yes, it translates the Slavic title or military rank (the modern meaning
varies from country to country).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voivode

In Poland, the word <wojewoda> is now used in the sense 'the governor of
a province/voivodeship <województwo>, appointed by the Prime Minister'.
<Voivod(e)> is the usual translation into English.

Piotr

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voivode
>
>
> <Voivod(e)> is the usual translation into English.
>
If voj- is "warrior", and her- is "army", how can vojevoda and hertoga
be "perfectly parallel" or one of them a loan translation? Isn't *voje
a collective, if it needs a singulative suffix?


Torsten

On 2008-12-02 13:29, tgpedersen wrote:

> If voj- is "warrior", and her- is "army", how can vojevoda and hertoga
> be "perfectly parallel" or one of them a loan translation?

Why the quotes? I merely said they were "not unlike" each other, not
perfectly parallel; nor did I claim that either of them was a loan
translation.

> Isn't *voje
> a collective, if it needs a singulative suffix?

No, it isn't, but singulars in *-inU were (and sometimes still are)
formed if the _plural_ acquires a collective meaning, denoting a social
group, a tribe, a country or the like (like OE Wealas [pl. of Wealh
'Celt'] > Wales). We still use group/ethnic names in -anin with plurals
in -ane, like Pol. Amerykanin 'American', dworzanin 'courtier' (pl.
Amerykanie, dworzanie)= the old type of *gordjaninU 'town-dweller',
*slove^ninU 'Slav' (pl. *gordjane, *slove^ne). In compounds, the bare
stem is used, not marked for categories like plurality or collectivity.
In Modern English a <toothbrush> is used for cleaning one's _teeth_
despite the absence of a plural marker in the initial member of the
compound.

Piotr

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> On 2008-12-02 13:29, tgpedersen wrote:
>
> > If voj- is "warrior", and her- is "army", how can vojevoda and
> > hertoga be "perfectly parallel" or one of them a loan translation?
>
> Why the quotes? I merely said they were "not unlike" each other, not
> perfectly parallel; nor did I claim that either of them was a loan
> translation.

Of course you did, you saw it coming ;-) the quote is from Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voivode
and the loan translation claim from Vasmer's comments.


Torsten

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...> wrote:
>
> At 5:31:53 PM on Monday, December 1, 2008, Andrew Jarrette
> wrote:
>
> <http://www.flaez.ch/pok/> has an index of the words in
> Pokorny, both attested and reconstructed; each word is
> followed by the root(s) under which it is mentioned.  These
> roots used to be links to the Leiden database, but they
> haven't been updated since the server was at
> <iiasnt.leidenuniv.nl>.
>
> Brian
>

Thanks. This will be helpful, despite the current inability to link to
the Leiden database.

Andrew

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "G&P" <G.and.P@...> wrote:
>
> LIV only lists verb roots.  Pokorny (and Bird) also list nouns,
pronouns,
> deictic words, particles and onomatapoeic words.


Of course.  Thanks for pointing this out.


>
> (On the other hand, LIV, or Pokorny, or Bird, or I, could be wrong.)
>
> Peter
>

I don't understand why you have said that, I'm not sure what you're
referring to. Anybody could be wrong about anything, of course. I
generally trust those ideas that are agreed upon by the most scholars
at the most recent time (don't most people), but on the issue of the
tectals I still find some lack of consensus, and I am unable to come
to my own conclusion, although deep down I lean more toward the idea
of only two series, velars and labiovelars.  But as you point out,
there may have been different series at different times, and merges
or divergences may have occurred at different times and among
different groups of speakers.

Andrew

On 2008-12-02 21:22, Arnaud Fournet wrote:

> Apparently, Pokorny's Dictionary does not accept any connection between
> Greek ou-k(h) and Latin au-d.
>
> What are the received analysis of these two words ?

As for Gk. ouk(í), we have the famous etymology proposed by Warren
Cowgill, *ne h2oju kWíd 'not in/on (your) life-EMPH' --> 'not ever, not
at all', with the original negative particle *ne dropped and the
emphatic part becoming *ojukí > oukí by regular sound change (with the
further reduced weak forms <ouk> and <ou>).

Excuse a silly question, but what Lat. aud do you mean? <haud>?

Piotr

----- Original Message -----
From: "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 11:26 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Negation


>
> On 2008-12-02 21:22, Arnaud Fournet wrote:
>
>> Apparently, Pokorny's Dictionary does not accept any connection between
>> Greek ou-k(h) and Latin au-d.
>>
>> What are the received analysis of these two words ?
>
> As for Gk. ouk(í), we have the famous etymology proposed by Warren
> Cowgill, *ne h2oju kWíd 'not in/on (your) life-EMPH' --> 'not ever, not
> at all', with the original negative particle *ne dropped and the
> emphatic part becoming *ojukí > oukí by regular sound change (with the
> further reduced weak forms <ouk> and <ou>).
>
> Excuse a silly question, but what Lat. aud do you mean? <haud>?
>
> Piotr
>
===========

ne oukwi can become n- ouki ?
kwi > ki instead of pi ?
I'm surprised.

(h)aud is "not"
I thought the h was just a graphic adornment.

A.

----- Original Message -----
From: G&P
To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 9:27 AM
Subject: RE: [tied] Negation


> any connection between Greek ou-k(h) and Latin au-d.
You may be confusing Latin aut (= "or) with Latin haud (= "not").    The
initial letter of haud gives you the clue as to why Pokorny makes no
connection with Greek ou.   The H probably goes back to an original *gh-.

Peter

=
hmhm
Probably ?

What if probably not goes back to *gh ?

A.

On 2008-12-03 10:30, Arnaud Fournet wrote:

> ne oukwi can become n- ouki ?
> kwi > ki instead of pi ?

Instead of <ti>, actually (before a front vowel). The delabialisation of
*kW after *u/w in a fixed compound (as in boukolos < *gWou-kWolh1o-) is
regular.

> (h)aud is "not"
> I thought the h was just a graphic adornment.

No, it's always there. The word is consistently <haud, haut> (very
occasionally <hau> before a consonant in early Latin), not *<(h)aud>.
Whatever its etymology, it's clear that both here and in the case of Gk.
<ouk(í)> the "true" negator was deleted and the surviving element is an
original emphatic particle (like French <pas> or English <not>).

Piotr