Reconstruction talk:Proto-Germanic/lawwō
Add topicLatest comment: 4 years ago by Holodwig21
@Holodwig21, Why did you cancel my edit? ---- Gnosandes (talk) 18:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Gnosandes: First Kroonen reconstructs *louH-éh₂- not *lewh₁-éh₂ and second, Indo-European *éh₂ would never give PGmc *a. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 18:38, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Holodwig21, It's the same thing. It's written in the dictionary. An Indo-European *-eh₂- would give PGmc *a under certain laws that you don't seem to know. I wrote them. Despite the fact that I have indicated as many as two hypotheses about the origin of the form. At the same time, you specified a rather fictitious root form. ---- Gnosandes (talk) 18:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Gnosandes: No it wouldn't. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 18:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Holodwig21, This is not an objection. *-eh₂- -> *-ā- (Dybo's law) ~ [Holtzmann's law] > *-ă- > *-ă-. ---- Gnosandes (talk) 19:08, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Gnosandes: That is not how Dybo's law works in Pgmc. *-eh₂- -> *-ē- -> *-e-; it has to be *-oh₂- -> *-ā- -> *-a-. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 19:28, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Holodwig21, It's a normal stem change. (At the same time, if I am wrong, I will apologize to you. Because I am not the Germanist, but the Balto-Slavist.) ---- Gnosandes (talk) 19:45, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Gnosandes: Not entirely. Germanic may differ on the stem vowel from other Indo-European, sometimes, with nouns, Germanic tends to pick the oblique stem, see *gʷémtis where Germanic picks the oblique instead of the full-grade. However, picking the o-grade, when everybody else has full-grade isn't something Germanic would typically do. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Holodwig21, This is not convincing, since the Proto-Germanic language is a separate branch in the phylogenetic tree, there is no influence on the choice. It has a right to be: *leh₂w- ~ *loh₂w-. ---- Gnosandes (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Gnosandes: Ablaut isn't random in Germanic. Proto-Germanic doesn't go around picking o-grades as it pleases from e-grade nouns. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Holodwig21, But we're not talking about randomness. Could the dialects have chosen the *loh₂w- in Germanic, instead of the *leh₂w- for Balto-Slavic? ---- Gnosandes (talk) 10:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Gnosandes: In short, no. PIE noun mostly don't ablaut and you will need a lot more evidence than what we have right now. Right now you are trying to connect two words that don't share a meaning Proto-Balto-Slavic *lā́ˀwāˀ (“place to sleep, bench, bed”) and Proto-Germanic *lawwō (“groove”). In order to claim they come from the same PIE noun, you have to solve two counter arguments; that you don't have enough evidence to claim they are related (only two possible related words) and that the meanings don't match. One could argued against your idea that they aren't related on semantic grounds and that Proto-Germanic *lawwō (“groove”) comes from *lowH-éh₂-; which would solve the semantic issue and relationship issue. In the case of Proto-Indo-European *séh₁mn̥ (“seed”) there is good evidence that Proto-Germanic pick the o-grade, given the semantic connection, all descendants share a meaning with seed, many cognates, and the phonological changes points to such noun. A change from (groove -> bench, bed) or the other way around isn't very convincing as a counter argument. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 17:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Holodwig21, In short, Yes. It is also unconvincing semantically with another root, which suggests a Kroonen. At the same time, your change (groove -> bench, bed) is quite strange. I wrote you everything above. Unconvincingly. ---- Gnosandes (talk) 17:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Gnosandes: I don't understand you argument, what do you mean by "It is also unconvincing semantically with another root, which suggests a Kroonen." the meaning for the root *lewH- would be "to cut". And the "(groove -> bench, bed)" isn't my change, it was a possible argument in favour of a semantic change. The Proto-Indo-European *leh₂wéh₂ has to have a meaning, it would be either groove; bench, bed or something else but bench, bed and groove isn't something someone can easily relate semantically. I'm also willing to go to WT:Etymology scriptorium to resolve this dispute. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 18:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Holodwig21, Nor do I understand your arguments. This applies to the current etymology. And the argument in favor is more like harm. ---- Gnosandes (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Gnosandes: I've moved this dicussion to the WT:Etymology scriptorium. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Holodwig21, Nor do I understand your arguments. This applies to the current etymology. And the argument in favor is more like harm. ---- Gnosandes (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Gnosandes: I don't understand you argument, what do you mean by "It is also unconvincing semantically with another root, which suggests a Kroonen." the meaning for the root *lewH- would be "to cut". And the "(groove -> bench, bed)" isn't my change, it was a possible argument in favour of a semantic change. The Proto-Indo-European *leh₂wéh₂ has to have a meaning, it would be either groove; bench, bed or something else but bench, bed and groove isn't something someone can easily relate semantically. I'm also willing to go to WT:Etymology scriptorium to resolve this dispute. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 18:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Holodwig21, In short, Yes. It is also unconvincing semantically with another root, which suggests a Kroonen. At the same time, your change (groove -> bench, bed) is quite strange. I wrote you everything above. Unconvincingly. ---- Gnosandes (talk) 17:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Gnosandes: In short, no. PIE noun mostly don't ablaut and you will need a lot more evidence than what we have right now. Right now you are trying to connect two words that don't share a meaning Proto-Balto-Slavic *lā́ˀwāˀ (“place to sleep, bench, bed”) and Proto-Germanic *lawwō (“groove”). In order to claim they come from the same PIE noun, you have to solve two counter arguments; that you don't have enough evidence to claim they are related (only two possible related words) and that the meanings don't match. One could argued against your idea that they aren't related on semantic grounds and that Proto-Germanic *lawwō (“groove”) comes from *lowH-éh₂-; which would solve the semantic issue and relationship issue. In the case of Proto-Indo-European *séh₁mn̥ (“seed”) there is good evidence that Proto-Germanic pick the o-grade, given the semantic connection, all descendants share a meaning with seed, many cognates, and the phonological changes points to such noun. A change from (groove -> bench, bed) or the other way around isn't very convincing as a counter argument. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 17:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Holodwig21, But we're not talking about randomness. Could the dialects have chosen the *loh₂w- in Germanic, instead of the *leh₂w- for Balto-Slavic? ---- Gnosandes (talk) 10:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Gnosandes: Ablaut isn't random in Germanic. Proto-Germanic doesn't go around picking o-grades as it pleases from e-grade nouns. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Holodwig21, This is not convincing, since the Proto-Germanic language is a separate branch in the phylogenetic tree, there is no influence on the choice. It has a right to be: *leh₂w- ~ *loh₂w-. ---- Gnosandes (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Gnosandes: Not entirely. Germanic may differ on the stem vowel from other Indo-European, sometimes, with nouns, Germanic tends to pick the oblique stem, see *gʷémtis where Germanic picks the oblique instead of the full-grade. However, picking the o-grade, when everybody else has full-grade isn't something Germanic would typically do. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Holodwig21, It's a normal stem change. (At the same time, if I am wrong, I will apologize to you. Because I am not the Germanist, but the Balto-Slavist.) ---- Gnosandes (talk) 19:45, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Gnosandes: That is not how Dybo's law works in Pgmc. *-eh₂- -> *-ē- -> *-e-; it has to be *-oh₂- -> *-ā- -> *-a-. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 19:28, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Holodwig21, This is not an objection. *-eh₂- -> *-ā- (Dybo's law) ~ [Holtzmann's law] > *-ă- > *-ă-. ---- Gnosandes (talk) 19:08, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Gnosandes: First Kroonen reconstructs *louH-éh₂- not *lewh₁-éh₂ and second, Indo-European *éh₂ would never give PGmc *a. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 18:38, 19 February 2020 (UTC)