An interesting IE sound change
anal...@hotmail.com
Rich Alderson says:
There is, of course, an example of a change in the opposite direction
within
Indo-European. In Albanian, one[1] outcome of *s is a voiced palatal
stop,
written <gj>: The word for "snake," cognate with Latin serpens, Greek
herpes,
Sanskrit sarpa-, is <gjarpr>.
end quote.
Sibilant to a stop.
Christopher Culver
> Rich Alderson says:
>
> There is, of course, an example of a change in the opposite direction
> within
> Indo-European. In Albanian, one[1] outcome of *s is a voiced palatal
> stop,
> written <gj>: The word for "snake," cognate with Latin serpens, Greek
> herpes,
> Sanskrit sarpa-, is <gjarpr>.
>
> end quote.
>
> Sibilant to a stop.
Not at all unusual for a sibilant to change to a voiced palatal or
affricate. The same thing has happened in Hungarian and Tatar.
anal...@hotmail.com
wrote:
The post says it is a palatovelar stop.
But this single counterexample (I have more) refutes thet
"palatalization" myth that makes "PIE" a kentum language and derives
say Sanskrit "jagAma" from a mythical "gegome" from articulatory ease
arguments.
Articulatory ease applied to "s" ought to lead to "h" and then perhaps
zero and not "g".
Yusuf B Gursey
: Not at all unusual for a sibilant to change to a voiced palatal or
: affricate. The same thing has happened in Hungarian and Tatar.
examples?
Harlan Messinger
> On Jul 3, 5:58 pm, Christopher Culver <crcul...@christopherculver.com>
> wrote:
>> analys...@hotmail.com writes:
>>> Rich Alderson says:
>>> There is, of course, an example of a change in the opposite direction
>>> within
>>> Indo-European. In Albanian, one[1] outcome of *s is a voiced palatal
>>> stop,
>>> written <gj>: The word for "snake," cognate with Latin serpens, Greek
>>> herpes,
>>> Sanskrit sarpa-, is <gjarpr>.
>>> end quote.
>>> Sibilant to a stop.
>> Not at all unusual for a sibilant to change to a voiced palatal or
>> affricate. The same thing has happened in Hungarian and Tatar.
>
> The post says it is a palatovelar stop.
Really? Look again, above. I see "... is a voiced palatal stop, ...."
anal...@hotmail.com
<hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sorry about that.
António Marques
Well, latin [s] became [Z] in some environments in rural portuguese.
Yusuf B Gursey
thanks, but I was interested in Hungarian and Tatar.
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
It doesn't refute it since showing that a sound change can go in
either direction does not prove that it did not go in one of those
directions.
> Articulatory ease applied to "s" ought to lead to "h" and then perhaps
> zero and not "g".
If it leads to h and then is borrowed into a language like Tamil* or
Russian** in which [h] and [g] are allophones, then the [h] can turn
into [g].
* /a:kum/ pronounced as [Agum] or [Ahum].
** Hilbert pronounced as Gilbert, according to one who went to Moscow
and tried to meet a certain Dr. Hilbert who was originally from West
Europe.
Peter T. Daniels
Mr. Khrushchev met with President Eisengower. There is no /h/ in
Russian; words containing /h/ are borrowed with /g/.
Panu
Not anymore. Nowadays, the [h] is perceived as [x], not as an
allophone of g. President Eisenhower is called Дуайт Дэвид Эйзенхауэр,
i.e. Duayt Devid Eyzenkhauer, in the Russian Wikipedia.
In a similar way, Helsinki used to be called Gelsingfors in Russian
(this is the Russian transliteration of the Swedish name,
Helsingfors). Now it is called Khelsinki (i.e. not Gelsinki but
Khelsinki).
Peter T. Daniels
Was that some sort of official diktat?
Joe Fineman
> Not anymore. Nowadays, the [h] is perceived as [x], not as an
> allophone of g. President Eisenhower is called Дуайт Дэвид
> Эйзенхауэр, i.e. Duayt Devid Eyzenkhauer, in the Russian Wikipedia.
>
> In a similar way, Helsinki used to be called Gelsingfors in Russian
> (this is the Russian transliteration of the Swedish name,
> Helsingfors). Now it is called Khelsinki (i.e. not Gelsinki but
> Khelsinki).
Certainly, to me, [x] sounds closer to [h] than [g] does, but I
suspect that this reform is going to cause a good deal of confusion.
How far back is it going to be pushed? I see that Hitler is still
Gitler, and Alexander Hamilton is still Gamil'ton. Presumably, the
descendants of the Hamiltons who immigrated into Russia some centuries
ago and became Gamil'tony will be allowed to keep that name -- but
what about the contemporary Scottish & American Hamiltons? Will they
all become Khamil'tony?
On the other hand, Sherlock Holmes has always been Sherlok Kholms, and
I see that he so remains in Wikipedia.
--
--- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net
||: There is no disputing about tastes, but there is a great :||
||: deal of bullying. :||
Christian Weisgerber
> Mr. Khrushchev met with President Eisengower.
I don't know about back then, but today the entry in the Russian
Wikipedia spells him Eyzenkhauer.
> There is no /h/ in Russian; words containing /h/ are borrowed
> with /g/.
Traditionally yes (Gindukush, Adolf Gitler), but obviously /x/ is
preferred nowadays; e.g. Khanna Montana or Martina Khingis.
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de
Peter T. Daniels
> Peter T. Daniels <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > Mr. Khrushchev met with President Eisengower.
>
> I don't know about back then, but today the entry in the Russian
> Wikipedia spells him Eyzenkhauer.
>
> > There is no /h/ in Russian; words containing /h/ are borrowed
> > with /g/.
>
> Traditionally yes (Gindukush, Adolf Gitler), but obviously /x/ is
> preferred nowadays; e.g. Khanna Montana or Martina Khingis.
I'll ask again.
Was that some sort of official diktat, or has there been a wholesale
change in the perception of foreign phonemes by the entire Russian-
speaking population?
Ruud Harmsen
sci.lang:
>Certainly, to me, [x] sounds closer to [h] than [g] does, but I
>suspect that this reform is going to cause a good deal of confusion.
[...]
>On the other hand, Sherlock Holmes has always been Sherlok Kholms, and
>I see that he so remains in Wikipedia.
Could it be that English h's (very audible and voiceless) tend to
become Russian [x], and that (historic) German, Dutch and Low-Saxon
h's (for the latter, think of Hansa trade, extending to St.
Petersburg), which are often voiced, have hardly any friction and may
be more like the absence of a glottal stop, are more likely to be
appreciated as [g]?
Could the geographic distribution of g/h variation in Russian (more to
the south, I think; Ukranian?) have anything to do with it?
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
Trond Engen
I remember reading -- long ago, when I was a boy -- that [g] is
preferred before vowels where Russian /x/ becomes [C]. I've never
checked if it's true. And I don't know if it's supposed to be true for
transliteration from all languages with an /h/.
Anyway, the change in the Russian rule might be explained if recent
exposure to foreign languages and massive import of western loans has
given words with /x/ where it didn't use to be -- a phonemic split.
--
Trond Engen
Panu
I have been wondering at that, too. It might have been a conscious
attempt to fight the influence of the Orthodox church on normative
Russian. In those areas of Russia where g is [g] and not [h], people
were mostly familiar with the h sound from church liturgy. Because of
the historical influence of Ukrainian clergy (Ukrainian pronounces g
as [h]), the normative pronunciation of Church Slavonic has, or used
to have, [h] for g. In fact, Russians otherwise unable to produce a
decent h still pronounce the g of Bog "God" as [x], and that of
Gospodi pomiluy "Lord have mercy" as [h].
lorad
Ne horosho.
lorad
> In
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.lang/tree/browse_frm/thread/77fa5c...
>
> Rich Alderson says:
>
> There is, of course, an example of a change in the opposite direction
> within
> Indo-European. In Albanian, one[1] outcome of *s is a voiced palatal
> stop,
> written <gj>: The word for "snake," cognate with Latin serpens, Greek
> herpes,
> Sanskrit sarpa-, is <gjarpr>.
>
> end quote.
>
> Sibilant to a stop.
Both look to be more likely related to Latvian 'tarps' - 'worm'.
'Worm' in turn (hah) looks related to Latvian 'kurms' - meaning
'(burrowing) mole'.
Peter T. Daniels
that's an /x/ = [x].
PaulJK
'sthat some Baltic Russian? :-)
> that's an /x/ = [x].
And it's ploxo, without the negative, anyway.
pjk
jimbotuk2000
John Atkinson
As it turns out, no.
'worm', (cognates in other Germanic languages mostly = 'snake') and
Latin 'vermis' come from PIE *wrmi-, from #wer-, twist.
Lithuanian 'kirmele', Latvian 'cerms', Russian 'cherv' ', Irish cruim',
Sanskrit 'krmi-', from PIE *kwrmi-, worm or bug.
Latvian 'tarps', Greek 'teridon' (woodworm), prob from PIE *terh1-
pierce by rubbing.
As for the mole word, it's also in Lithuanian ('kurmis'), but nowhere
else AFAICS. I don't _think_ it's related to the *kwrmi- words, does
anyone know?
Latin 'serpens' is the present participle of 'serpere', to creep. PIE
*serp-.
John.
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> lorad wrote:
> > On Jul 3, 1:23 pm, analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> In
>
> >>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.lang/tree/browse_frm/thread/77fa5c...
>
> >> Rich Alderson says:
>
> >> There is, of course, an example of a change in the opposite direction
> >> within
> >> Indo-European. In Albanian, one[1] outcome of *s is a voiced palatal
> >> stop,
> >> written <gj>: The word for "snake," cognate with Latin serpens, Greek
> >> herpes,
> >> Sanskrit sarpa-, is <gjarpr>.
>
> >> end quote.
>
> >> Sibilant to a stop.
>
> > Both look to be more likely related to Latvian 'tarps' - 'worm'.
>
> > 'Worm' in turn (hah) looks related to Latvian 'kurms' - meaning
> > '(burrowing) mole'.
>
> As it turns out, no.
>
> 'worm', (cognates in other Germanic languages mostly = 'snake') and
> Latin 'vermis' come from PIE *wrmi-, from #wer-, twist.
>
> Lithuanian 'kirmele', Latvian 'cerms', Russian 'cherv' ', Irish cruim',
> Sanskrit 'krmi-', from PIE *kwrmi-, worm or bug.
In modern Sanskrit pronunciation, it's usually krimi or krumi
depending on where the Pandit is from. In Malayalam, it can be kr.mi
with a syllabic trill.
> Latvian 'tarps', Greek 'teridon' (woodworm), prob from PIE *terh1-
> pierce by rubbing.
>
> As for the mole word, it's also in Lithuanian ('kurmis'), but nowhere
> else AFAICS. I don't _think_ it's related to the *kwrmi- words, does
> anyone know?
>
> Latin 'serpens' is the present participle of 'serpere', to creep. PIE
> *serp-.
Surely, its creep meaning comes from its serpent meaning. sarpa* is
serpent in Sanskrit.
> John.
Brian M. Scott
"ranjit_...@yahoo.com" <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote
in
<news:673883c1-bac5-4b6a...@c2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang:
> On Aug 12, 1:48�am, John Atkinson <johna...@bigpond.com> wrote:
[...]
>> Latin 'serpens' is the present participle of 'serpere',
>> to creep. �PIE *serp-.
> Surely, its creep meaning comes from its serpent meaning.
> sarpa* is serpent in Sanskrit.
Both are from PIE root *serp- 'to creep', whence also
Sanskrit <s�rpati> 'creeps, crawls, goes' and Greek <h�rpo:>
'to creep, crawl, go slowly', whence <herpet�n> 'creeping
animal'.
Brian'
lorad
???
A matter of differing orthography.
Cyrrilic 'x' can produce an Englich 'h' when expressed.
One does not say .'Ya khochu'.. rather it is expressed 'Ya hochu'
lorad
'ploxo' is pronounced 'plo-ho'... an 'h' is evident.
The negation was part of the response meaning 'not good'.
lorad
> lorad wrote:
> > On Jul 3, 1:23 pm, analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> In
>
> >>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.lang/tree/browse_frm/thread/77fa5c...
>
> >> Rich Alderson says:
>
> >> There is, of course, an example of a change in the opposite direction
> >> within
> >> Indo-European. In Albanian, one[1] outcome of *s is a voiced palatal
> >> stop,
> >> written <gj>: The word for "snake," cognate with Latin serpens, Greek
> >> herpes,
> >> Sanskrit sarpa-, is <gjarpr>.
>
> >> end quote.
>
> >> Sibilant to a stop.
Very unlikely.
> > Both look to be more likely related to Latvian 'tarps' - 'worm'.
>
> > 'Worm' in turn (hah) looks related to Latvian 'kurms' - meaning
> > '(burrowing) mole'.
>
> As it turns out, no.
???
Based on you erroneous conjectures?
Not convincing.
> 'worm', (cognates in other Germanic languages mostly = 'snake') and
> Latin 'vermis' come from PIE *wrmi-, from #wer-, twist.
So some say..
My example demonstrates that what some say is at least incomplete - if
not erroneous.
(And PIE never existed)
> Lithuanian 'kirmele', Latvian 'cerms', Russian 'cherv' ', Irish cruim',
> Sanskrit 'krmi-', from PIE *kwrmi-, worm or bug.
That Sanskrit is indeed interesting.. an equivalent to the Latvian
form.
(And your Latvian 'cerms' is incorrect. As I said the Latvian word is
'kurms' or 'kurmis')
(And as I said *PIE never existed)
>
> Latvian 'tarps', Greek 'teridon' (woodworm), prob from PIE *terh1-
> pierce by rubbing.
Very unlikely. I reject the 'rubbing' allusion as being unlikely.
(And *PIE never existed)
> As for the mole word, it's also in Lithuanian ('kurmis'), but nowhere
> else AFAICS. I don't _think_ it's related to the *kwrmi- words, does
> anyone know?
Are you feeling well??
Or simply so devoted to you goal driven desires that you did not even
notice your given Sanskrit 'krmi' ?
Take two aspirin and lie down soonest.
> Latin 'serpens' is the present participle of 'serpere', to creep. PIE
> *serp-.
(*PIE never existed)
Brian M. Scott
<lora...@cs.com> wrote in
<news:fb0c7daf-da5a-4764...@h31g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang:
[...]
> One does not say .'Ya khochu'.. rather it is expressed 'Ya
> hochu'
You need to listen more carefully. The velar friction is
sometimes pretty minimal, but it's there.
PaulJK
So now he is talking about how it's pronounced, not how
it's written, in which case he shows he is unable to hear
the correct vowels as well as consonants.
It's pronounced 'Ya xachu' not 'Ya hochu'.
pjk
John Atkinson
>
>> Lithuanian 'kirmele', Latvian 'cerms', Russian 'cherv' ', Irish cruim',
>> Sanskrit 'krmi-', from PIE *kwrmi-, worm or bug.
>
> That Sanskrit is indeed interesting.. an equivalent to the Latvian
> form.
> (And your Latvian 'cerms' is incorrect. As I said the Latvian word is
> 'kurms' or 'kurmis')
I know no Latvian. But Buck " Dictionary of synonyms in IE Languages"
gives cerms = "maw-worm" (whatever that is) as cognate with Old
Lithuanian kirmis (modern Lith kirmele). And an on-line Latvian-English
dictionary translates Latvian cerm as "worm". (Not cerms though-- maybe
Buck did get it slightly wrong.) Are you telling me you don't know this
word?!!
However, Baltic kurms, kurmis (= "mole") is a completely different word
with a completely different meaning.
Note that Sanskrit (and PIE) syllabic /-r.- / _always_ corresponds to
Baltic /-ir- /, not /-ur- /. So Baltic kurmis can't be cognate with
Sanskrit / kr.mi- /. It misses out both in meaning and form. Whereas
Lithuanian kirmis is a perfect match.
Proto-Balto-Slavic /ki- / > /c^e- / is normal in Slavonic (First
Palatisation of Velars), but I didn't know that anything like that
happened in Latvian.
[...]
John.
lorad
> lorad wrote:
> > On Aug 11, 10:48 pm, John Atkinson <johna...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> [...]
>
> >> Lithuanian 'kirmele', Latvian 'cerms', Russian 'cherv' ', Irish cruim',
> >> Sanskrit 'krmi-', from PIE *kwrmi-, worm or bug.
>
> > That Sanskrit is indeed interesting.. an equivalent to the Latvian
> > form.
> > (And your Latvian 'cerms' is incorrect. As I said the Latvian word is
> > 'kurms' or 'kurmis')
>
> I know no Latvian. But Buck " Dictionary of synonyms in IE Languages"
> gives cerms = "maw-worm" (whatever that is) as cognate with Old
> Lithuanian kirmis (modern Lith kirmele). And an on-line Latvian-English
> dictionary translates Latvian cerm as "worm". (Not cerms though-- maybe
> Buck did get it slightly wrong.) Are you telling me you don't know this
> word?!!
Good grief..
Not only do I speak the language, but i also am looking at a standard
Latvian dictionary which clearly gives 'kurms' for [animal] 'mole'
Your 'cerms' means 'round worm'; a gastrointestinal parasite.
When looking at English 'worms' burrowing through the dirt, one does
not think of gastrointestinal parasites, rather one primarily thinks
of a burrowing creature.
> However, Baltic kurms, kurmis (= "mole") is a completely different word
> with a completely different meaning.
Yes, indeed.
However, given that the English 'worm' previously has undergone
significant semantic changes (from fire breathing 'dragon' to
'annelid') my supposition remains valid.
"worm
O.E. wurm, variant of wyrm "serpent, dragon," also in later O.E.
"earthworm," from P.Gmc. *wurmiz (cf. O.S., O.H.G., Ger. wurm,
O.Fris., Du. worm, O.N. ormr, Goth. waurms "serpent, worm"), from PIE
*wrmi-/*wrmo- "worm" (cf. Gk. rhomos, L. vermis "worm," O.Rus. vermie
"insects," Lith. varmas "insect, gnat"), possibly from base *wer-
"turn" (see versus). The ancient category of these was much more
extensive than the modern, scientific, one and included serpents,
scorpions, maggots, and the supposed causes of certain diseases. In
Eng., the -o- was a scribal substitution to avoid confusion of -u- and
-r-"
> Note that Sanskrit (and PIE) syllabic /-r.- / _always_ corresponds to
> Baltic /-ir- /, not /-ur- /. So Baltic kurmis can't be cognate with
> Sanskrit / kr.mi- /. It misses out both in meaning and form. Whereas
> Lithuanian kirmis is a perfect match.
???
You are deluded to suppose that, and incorrect.
You claim no relationship exists between Latvian 'kurmis' and
Lithuanian 'kirmis' ?
- Even though both have evolved from the same parent language??
Where have you left your mind, dear person?
> Proto-Balto-Slavic /ki- / > /c^e- / is normal in Slavonic (First
> Palatisation of Velars), but I didn't know that anything like that
> happened in Latvian.
???
Why do you mention this (conjectured) non-sequitur?
Are you still stuck in your erroneous 'tserms'?
lorad
> Brian M. Scott wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 23:21:46 -0700 (PDT), lorad
> > <news:fb0c7daf-da5a-4764...@h31g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
> > in sci.lang:
>
> > [...]
>
> >> One does not say .'Ya khochu'.. rather it is expressed 'Ya
> >> hochu'
>
> > You need to listen more carefully. The velar friction is
> > sometimes pretty minimal, but it's there.
>
> So now he is talking about how it's pronounced, not how
> it's written,
I usually do. Is this a news flash for you?
Pay closer attention.
> in which case he shows he is unable to hear
> the correct vowels as well as consonants.
> It's pronounced 'Ya xachu' not 'Ya hochu'.
Sorry, but you are wrong.
There is no English 'x' sound in 'hochu'.
Go speak to a russian.
lorad
> On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 23:21:46 -0700 (PDT), lorad
> <news:fb0c7daf-da5a-4764...@h31g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
> in sci.lang:
>
> [...]
>
> > One does not say .'Ya khochu'.. rather it is expressed 'Ya
> > hochu'
>
> You need to listen more carefully. The velar friction is
> sometimes pretty minimal, but it's there.
Yes, as you say.. it can be there... and it is very minimal.
But the primary sound remains an aspirated English 'h'.
lorad
> On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 23:24:58 -0700 (PDT),
> in
> <news:673883c1-bac5-4b6a...@c2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
> in sci.lang:
>
> > On Aug 12, 1:48 am, John Atkinson <johna...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> Latin 'serpens' is the present participle of 'serpere',
> >> to creep. PIE *serp-.
> > Surely, its creep meaning comes from its serpent meaning.
> > sarpa* is serpent in Sanskrit.
>
> Both are from PIE root *serp- 'to creep', whence also
> 'to creep, crawl, go slowly', whence <herpetón> 'creeping
> animal'.
>
> Brian'
Very nice supposition..
I will concur with that supposition - except for the non-real *PIE
referral...
Given that Greek <hérpo> (to crawl) appears to be related to Latvian
'rapo' (to crawl).
..and also appears to be related to the Latin 'serpens', we now have a
rather certain source for the English 'serpent'.
And 'herpetology'.
We can now also see that the words in each ancient language described
the *action* of the 'crawling' creature...
And have confirmed that serpents did indeed crawl in ancient times.
That only leaves us with 'worm' to solve... which has an entirely
different source.
lorad
PS: Do be more precise, please.
Previously you stated "As for the mole word, it's also in Lithuanian
('kurmis')"
Now you state "Whereas Lithuanian kirmis is a perfect match."
Which do you think it might be now?
António Marques
? John said both times that there was a word kurmis and a word kirmis,
and that while kirmis looked like e cognate, kurmis didn't. Did I get it
wrong?
John Atkinson
There is no English `x' sound, period. (Exception: for some speakers,
it occurs in a couple of common words borrowed from German and Scottish.)
J.
Peter T. Daniels
The symbol < [x] > does not stand for an "English 'x' sound." It
stands for a voiceless velar fricative, spelled in German <ch>.
Brian M. Scott
<lora...@cs.com> wrote in
<news:4a484531-abd8-442c...@v36g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang:
>> [...]
No.
Brian M. Scott
<paul....@paradise.net.nz> wrote in
<news:h60kqt$snn$1...@news.eternal-september.org> in sci.lang:
> Brian M. Scott wrote:
>> [...]
More precisely, with turned-a in <яПНяПНяПНяПН>.
Brian
John Atkinson
> On Aug 13, 5:52 am, John Atkinson <johna...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>> lorad wrote:
>>> On Aug 11, 10:48 pm, John Atkinson <johna...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>>>> Lithuanian 'kirmele', Latvian 'cerms', Russian 'cherv' ', Irish cruim',
>>>> Sanskrit 'krmi-', from PIE *kwrmi-, worm or bug.
>>> That Sanskrit is indeed interesting.. an equivalent to the Latvian
>>> form.
>>> (And your Latvian 'cerms' is incorrect. As I said the Latvian word is
>>> 'kurms' or 'kurmis')
>> I know no Latvian. But Buck " Dictionary of synonyms in IE Languages"
>> gives cerms = "maw-worm" (whatever that is) as cognate with Old
>> Lithuanian kirmis (modern Lith kirmele). And an on-line Latvian-English
>> dictionary translates Latvian cerm as "worm". (Not cerms though-- maybe
>> Buck did get it slightly wrong.) Are you telling me you don't know this
>> word?!!
>
> Good grief..
> Not only do I speak the language, but i also am looking at a standard
> Latvian dictionary which clearly gives 'kurms' for [animal] 'mole'
> Your 'cerms' means 'round worm'; a gastrointestinal parasite.
So Buck was right. And you were dead wrong when you said " 'cerms' is
incorrect" and not a Latvian word. Thank you.
According to Buck, it actually means maw-worm, that is (as I've now
found out) Ascaris vermicularis, which indeed is a species of nematode,
or roundworm.
> When looking at English 'worms' burrowing through the dirt, one does
> not think of gastrointestinal parasites, rather one primarily thinks
> of a burrowing creature.
Speak for yourself. By this argument, wombats are called that because
they burrow through the earth like worms, and come out at night like
bats. They also fly like pigs -- look, there one goes now.
>> However, Baltic kurms, kurmis (= "mole") is a completely different word
>> with a completely different meaning.
>
> Yes, indeed.
> However, given that the English 'worm' previously has undergone
> significant semantic changes (from fire breathing 'dragon' to
> 'annelid') my supposition remains valid.
No, why should it? Moles don't breathe fire, as far as I know (I've
never actually met one). Actually, proto-Germanic dragons didn't
breathe fire either.
> "worm
> O.E. wurm, variant of wyrm "serpent, dragon," also in later O.E.
> "earthworm," from P.Gmc. *wurmiz (cf. O.S., O.H.G., Ger. wurm,
> O.Fris., Du. worm, O.N. ormr, Goth. waurms "serpent, worm"), from PIE
> *wrmi-/*wrmo- "worm" (cf. Gk. rhomos, L. vermis "worm," O.Rus. vermie
> "insects," Lith. varmas "insect, gnat"), possibly from base *wer-
> "turn" (see versus). The ancient category of these was much more
> extensive than the modern, scientific, one and included serpents,
> scorpions, maggots, and the supposed causes of certain diseases.
But not moles, or any other mammal.
>> Note that Sanskrit (and PIE) syllabic /-r.- / _always_ corresponds to
>> Baltic /-ir- /, not /-ur- /. So Baltic kurmis can't be cognate with
>> Sanskrit / kr.mi- /. It misses out both in meaning and form. Whereas
>> Lithuanian kirmis is a perfect match.
>
> [...]
> You claim no relationship exists between Latvian 'kurmis' and
> Lithuanian 'kirmis' ?
I do indeed. By the same token, there's no relationship between Latvian
"kurms" and Latvian "cerms".
> - Even though both have evolved from the same parent language??
What language did "kurmis" evolve from? (As I said before, I'd be
interested if anyone can tell me.)
[...]
>> Proto-Balto-Slavic /ki- / > /c^e- / is normal in Slavonic (First
>> Palatisation of Velars), but I didn't know that anything like that
>> happened in Latvian.
>
> ???
> Why do you mention this (conjectured) non-sequitur?
What "non-sequitur" is that? What "conjecture"?
> Are you still stuck in your erroneous 'tserms'?
Of course. Since, as you've acknowledged, it is indeed the Latvian word
for (a kind of) worm, as originally cited by me. So what's "erroneous"
about it?
J.
Brian M. Scott
<lora...@cs.com> wrote in
<news:8400b2eb-5f73-4158...@w6g2000yqw.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang:
> On Aug 12, 11:44īŋŊam, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 23:24:58 -0700 (PDT),
>> "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com" <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> in
>> <news:673883c1-bac5-4b6a...@c2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
>> in sci.lang:
>>> On Aug 12, 1:48īŋŊam, John Atkinson <johna...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> Latin 'serpens' is the present participle of 'serpere',
>>>> to creep. īŋŊPIE *serp-.
>>> Surely, its creep meaning comes from its serpent meaning.
>>> sarpa* is serpent in Sanskrit.
>> Both are from PIE root *serp- 'to creep', whence also
>> Sanskrit <sīŋŊrpati> 'creeps, crawls, goes' and Greek <hīŋŊrpo:>
>> 'to creep, crawl, go slowly', whence <herpetīŋŊn> 'creeping
>> animal'.
> Very nice supposition..
> I will concur with that supposition - except for the non-real *PIE
> referral...
The concurrence of a linguistic ignoramus is meaningless.
> Given that Greek <hīŋŊrpo> (to crawl) appears to be related
> to Latvian 'rapo' (to crawl).
No.
> ..and also appears to be related to the Latin 'serpens',
> we now have a rather certain source for the English
> 'serpent'. And 'herpetology'.
We know precisely where those words came from. English
<serpent> is from Old French <serpent>, from Latin <serpens>
'creeping thing', originally the present participle of
<serpere> 'to creep'. <Herpetology> is a modern scientific
word constructed from Greek elements, the first of which is
<herpetīŋŊn>, noted above.
[...]
Trond Engen
Lorad is thinking of a widespread sinister model of an ancestor to the
Latvian language, an usurpatory construct that not only denies the
Latvian language its well-deserved glory as The Only Language Spoken
Entirely by People Incapable of Innovation, but whose existence implies
that Latvian is of equal antiquity to any other language. When well
educated people seem unable to discuss Indo-European linguistics without
making allusions to this language, and thereby its implications, lorad
is becoming fed up.
--
Trond Engen
António Marques
Why, I thought Latvian had derived from Lithuanian.
PaulJK
> Trond Engen wrote:
>> John Atkinson:
>>> lorad wrote:
>>>> On Aug 13, 5:52 am, John Atkinson <johna...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Proto-Balto-Slavic /ki- / > /c^e- / is normal in Slavonic (First
>>>>> Palatisation of Velars), but I didn't know that anything like that
>>>>> happened in Latvian.
>>>>
>>>> ???
>>>> Why do you mention this (conjectured) non-sequitur?
>>>
>>> What "non-sequitur" is that? What "conjecture"?
>>>
>>>> Are you still stuck in your erroneous 'tserms'?
>>>
>>> Of course. Since, as you've acknowledged, it is indeed the Latvian
>>> word for (a kind of) worm, as originally cited by me. So what's
>>> "erroneous" about it?
>>
>> Lorad is thinking of a widespread sinister model of an ancestor to the
>> Latvian language, an usurpatory construct that not only denies the
>> Latvian language its well-deserved glory as The Only Language Spoken
>> Entirely by People Incapable of Innovation,
i.e. TOLSEPII
>> but whose existence implies
>> that Latvian is of equal antiquity to any other language. When well
>> educated people seem unable to discuss Indo-European linguistics without
>> making allusions to this language, and thereby its implications, lorad
>> is becoming fed up.
>
> Why, I thought Latvian had derived from Lithuanian.
There couldn't be more than one TOLSEPII language, could there?
pjk
PaulJK
> On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 20:56:01 +1200, PaulJK
> <paul....@paradise.net.nz> wrote in
> <news:h60kqt$snn$1...@news.eternal-september.org> in sci.lang:
>
>> Brian M. Scott wrote:
>
>>> On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 23:21:46 -0700 (PDT), lorad
>>> <lora...@cs.com> wrote in
>>> <news:fb0c7daf-da5a-4764...@h31g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
>>> in sci.lang:
>
>>> [...]
>
>>>> One does not say .'Ya khochu'.. rather it is expressed 'Ya
>>>> hochu'
>
>>> You need to listen more carefully. The velar friction is
>>> sometimes pretty minimal, but it's there.
>
>> So now he is talking about how it's pronounced, not how
>> it's written, in which case he shows he is unable to hear
>> the correct vowels as well as consonants.
>> It's pronounced 'Ya xachu' not 'Ya hochu'.
>
> More precisely, with turned-a in <яПНяПНяПНяПН>.
> Brian
Oh yes, that's very true.
I didn't want to complicate lorad's folksy phonemic representations.
(I considered 'a' being closer to the actual sound of <o> in <яПНяПНяПНяПН>
than his 'o'.)
Brian M. Scott
<paul....@paradise.net.nz> wrote in
<news:h62q2t$7dv$1...@news.eternal-september.org> in sci.lang:
> Brian M. Scott wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 20:56:01 +1200, PaulJK
>> <paul....@paradise.net.nz> wrote in
>> <news:h60kqt$snn$1...@news.eternal-september.org> in sci.lang:
[...]
>>> So now he is talking about how it's pronounced, not how
>>> it's written, in which case he shows he is unable to hear
>>> the correct vowels as well as consonants.
>>> It's pronounced 'Ya xachu' not 'Ya hochu'.
>> More precisely, with turned-a in <яПНяПНяПНяПН>.
> Oh yes, that's very true.
> I didn't want to complicate lorad's folksy phonemic
> representations. (I considered 'a' being closer to the
> actual sound of <o> in <яПНяПНяПНяПН> than his 'o'.)
I agree.
Brian
John Atkinson
> lorad wrote:
>> On Aug 13, 5:52 am, John Atkinson <johna...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>> lorad wrote:
>>>> On Aug 11, 10:48 pm, John Atkinson <johna...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>> Lithuanian 'kirmele', Latvian 'cerms', Russian 'cherv' ', Irish cruim',
>>>>> Sanskrit 'krmi-', from PIE *kwrmi-, worm or bug.
>
>>>> That Sanskrit is indeed interesting.. an equivalent to the Latvian
>>>> form.
>>>> (And your Latvian 'cerms' is incorrect. As I said the Latvian word is
>>>> 'kurms' or 'kurmis')
>
>>> I know no Latvian. But Buck "Dictionary of synonyms in IE Languages"
>>> gives cerms = "maw-worm" (whatever that is) as cognate with Old
>>> Lithuanian kirmis (modern Lith kirmele).
> [...]
>>> Proto-Balto-Slavic /ki- / > /c^e- / is normal in Slavonic (First
>>> Palatisation of Velars), but I didn't know that anything like that
>>> happened in Latvian.
>> ???
>> Why do you mention this (conjectured) non-sequitur?
>
> What "non-sequitur" is that? What "conjecture"?
OK, I didn't "conjecture" anything but I will now. Or, rather, I'll
simply spell out in detail what should be obvious to all from what's
already been said.
Lithuanian "kirmis" and Russian "c^erv'" both mean "worm", and clearly
come, through well-established sound changes, from Proto-Balto-Slavic
*kr.mis. (Aside: The -v- in the Slavic words comes from a suffix.)
The Proto-Baltic form would have been "kirmis".
But the cognate Latvian word is <cerms> (pronounced [tserms]). Why not
[kirms] or [kerms]?
Two obvious possibilities:
Conjecture (1): [k] becomes palatised to [ts] before a front vowel in
Latvian, similar to what happened in Slavonic, but much later, after
Latvian split from Lithuanian. Anyone who knows anything about Baltic
linguistics (that's not me!) could no doubt say whether this is so or
not -- are there other words where <k> in Lithuanian corresponds to <c>
in Latvian?
Conjecture (2): The [ts] in "cerms" is due to influence from the
Slavonic word. As is well known, there has been pretty continuous
diffusion between Baltic and Slavonic languages for millennia.
John.
lorad
> On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 07:44:10 -0700 (PDT), lorad
Yes.
Have a russian conjugate 'hochu' for you.
lorad
> lorad wrote:
> > On Aug 13, 5:52 am, John Atkinson <johna...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> >> lorad wrote:
> >>> On Aug 11, 10:48 pm, John Atkinson <johna...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> >> [...]
>
> >>>> Lithuanian 'kirmele', Latvian 'cerms', Russian 'cherv' ', Irish cruim',
> >>>> Sanskrit 'krmi-', from PIE *kwrmi-, worm or bug.
> >>> That Sanskrit is indeed interesting.. an equivalent to the Latvian
> >>> form.
> >>> (And your Latvian 'cerms' is incorrect. As I said the Latvian word is
> >>> 'kurms' or 'kurmis')
> >> I know no Latvian. But Buck " Dictionary of synonyms in IE Languages"
> >> gives cerms = "maw-worm" (whatever that is) as cognate with Old
> >> Lithuanian kirmis (modern Lith kirmele). And an on-line Latvian-English
> >> dictionary translates Latvian cerm as "worm". (Not cerms though-- maybe
> >> Buck did get it slightly wrong.) Are you telling me you don't know this
> >> word?!!
>
> > Good grief..
> > Not only do I speak the language, but i also am looking at a standard
> > Latvian dictionary which clearly gives 'kurms' for [animal] 'mole'
> > Your 'cerms' means 'round worm'; a gastrointestinal parasite.
>
> So Buck was right.
Your Buck cited example was incorrect.
> And you were dead wrong when you said " 'cerms' is
> incorrect" and not a Latvian word. Thank you.
You are an idiot. (classical definition)
If you refuse to admit your mistakes, there can be no discussion with
you.
> According to Buck, it actually means maw-worm, that is (as I've now
> found out) Ascaris vermicularis, which indeed is a species of nematode,
> or roundworm.
Quit wasting time.
I don't need to know the details of your mistake.
> > When looking at English 'worms' burrowing through the dirt, one does
> > not think of gastrointestinal parasites, rather one primarily thinks
> > of a burrowing creature.
>
> Speak for yourself. By this argument, wombats are called that because
> they burrow through the earth like worms, and come out at night like
> bats. They also fly like pigs -- look, there one goes now.
To the best on my knowldge your wombats have no place in european
historical linguistics.
> >> However, Baltic kurms, kurmis (= "mole") is a completely different word
> >> with a completely different meaning.
>
> > Yes, indeed.
> > However, given that the English 'worm' previously has undergone
> > significant semantic changes (from fire breathing 'dragon' to
> > 'annelid') my supposition remains valid.
>
> No, why should it? Moles don't breathe fire, as far as I know (I've
> never actually met one). Actually, proto-Germanic dragons didn't
> breathe fire either.
See? You *are* a time wasting idiot.
> > "worm
> > O.E. wurm, variant of wyrm "serpent, dragon," also in later O.E.
> > "earthworm," from P.Gmc. *wurmiz (cf. O.S., O.H.G., Ger. wurm,
> > O.Fris., Du. worm, O.N. ormr, Goth. waurms "serpent, worm"), from PIE
> > *wrmi-/*wrmo- "worm" (cf. Gk. rhomos, L. vermis "worm," O.Rus. vermie
> > "insects," Lith. varmas "insect, gnat"), possibly from base *wer-
> > "turn" (see versus). The ancient category of these was much more
> > extensive than the modern, scientific, one and included serpents,
> > scorpions, maggots, and the supposed causes of certain diseases.
>
> But not moles, or any other mammal.
>
> >> Note that Sanskrit (and PIE) syllabic /-r.- / _always_ corresponds to
> >> Baltic /-ir- /, not /-ur- /. So Baltic kurmis can't be cognate with
> >> Sanskrit / kr.mi- /. It misses out both in meaning and form. Whereas
> >> Lithuanian kirmis is a perfect match.
>
> > [...]
> > You claim no relationship exists between Latvian 'kurmis' and
> > Lithuanian 'kirmis' ?
>
> I do indeed.
So good of you to flip flop for us - once again.
> By the same token, there's no relationship between Latvian
> "kurms" and Latvian "cerms".
>
> > - Even though both have evolved from the same parent language??
>
> What language did "kurmis" evolve from? (As I said before, I'd be
> interested if anyone can tell me.)
From the parent language of both Latvian and Lithuanian, of course.
Some people refer to it as Common Baltic (ca 600-1200ad)
> [...]
>
> >> Proto-Balto-Slavic /ki- / > /c^e- / is normal in Slavonic (First
> >> Palatisation of Velars), but I didn't know that anything like that
> >> happened in Latvian.
>
> > ???
> > Why do you mention this (conjectured) non-sequitur?
>
> What "non-sequitur" is that? What "conjecture"?
>
> > Are you still stuck in your erroneous 'tserms'?
>
> Of course. Since, as you've acknowledged, it is indeed the Latvian word
> for (a kind of) worm, as originally cited by me. So what's "erroneous"
> about it?
You were still playing around with you misconstrued gastrointestinal
nematodes - while everyone else was taking about open range annelids
and crawlers.
lorad
> On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 08:10:55 -0700 (PDT), lorad
> <news:8400b2eb-5f73-4158...@w6g2000yqw.googlegroups.com>
> in sci.lang:
>
> > On Aug 12, 11:44 am, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 23:24:58 -0700 (PDT),
> >> "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com" <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >> in
> >> <news:673883c1-bac5-4b6a...@c2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
> >> in sci.lang:
> >> [...]
> >>>> Latin 'serpens' is the present participle of 'serpere',
> >>> Surely, its creep meaning comes from its serpent meaning.
> >>> sarpa* is serpent in Sanskrit.
> >> Both are from PIE root *serp- 'to creep', whence also
> >> 'to creep, crawl, go slowly', whence <herpetón> 'creeping
> >> animal'.
> > Very nice supposition..
> > I will concur with that supposition - except for the non-real *PIE
> > referral...
>
> The concurrence of a linguistic ignoramus is meaningless.
>
> > to Latvian 'rapo' (to crawl).
>
> No.
Yes indeed. Game, set, and match.
Additionally, Greek <hérpo> (crawl) and Latvian 'rapo' (crawl) are
also related to 'reptile' :
(OED): "reptile
1390, from O.Fr. reptile (1314), from L.L. reptile, neut. of reptilis
(adj.) "creping, crawling," from rept-(um), pp. stem of repere "to
crawl, creep," from PIE base *rep- "to creep, crawl" (cf. Lith.
replioju "to creep"). Used of persons of low character from 1749. :
Cool, huh? (You should have checked your usual authoritative sources
before leaping)
> > ..and also appears to be related to the Latin 'serpens',
> > we now have a rather certain source for the English
> > 'serpent'. And 'herpetology'.
>
> We know precisely where those words came from. English
> <serpent> is from Old French <serpent>, from Latin <serpens>
> 'creeping thing', originally the present participle of
> <serpere> 'to creep'. <Herpetology> is a modern scientific
> word constructed from Greek elements, the first of which is
> <herpetón>, noted above.
Old French - in case you didn't notice - is something called *an
intermediate language* between Latin and English.
I am not overly interested in intermediate languages. Rather I am more
interested in more ancient languages.
If you wish to play with sliced and diced semantics - go knock
yourself out.
Brian M. Scott
<john...@bigpond.com> wrote in
<news:l0chm.11688$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au> in
sci.lang:
[...]
> OK, I didn't "conjecture" anything but I will now. Or, rather, I'll
> simply spell out in detail what should be obvious to all from what's
> already been said.
> Lithuanian "kirmis" and Russian "c^erv'" both mean "worm", and clearly
> come, through well-established sound changes, from Proto-Balto-Slavic
> *kr.mis. (Aside: The -v- in the Slavic words comes from a suffix.)
Derksen gives PBSl *kir-m/w-i-, PSl čьrvь (c^UvI).
> The Proto-Baltic form would have been "kirmis".
> But the cognate Latvian word is <cerms> (pronounced [tserms]).
Derksen gives <cirmis>. There's also an Old Prussian
<girmis> 'maggot'.
> Why not [kirms] or [kerms]?
> Two obvious possibilities:
> Conjecture (1): [k] becomes palatised to [ts] before a
> front vowel in Latvian, similar to what happened in
> Slavonic, but much later, after Latvian split from
> Lithuanian. Anyone who knows anything about Baltic
> linguistics (that's not me!) could no doubt say whether
> this is so or not -- are there other words where <k> in
> Lithuanian corresponds to <c> in Latvian?
I found a little data in an exercise in reconstruction from
a linguistics course. (They seem to be presented in a
mixture of standard and phonetic orthography.)
Lat. <cits>, Lith. <kitas>, Latgal. <ciits> 'other'
Lat. <pietsi>, Lith. <peNki>, Latg. <piitsi> 'five'
Lat. <kacens>, Lith. <katSiukas>, Latg. <kakiens> 'kitten'
Lat. <daudz>, Lith. <daug>, Latg. <doudzi> 'many'
I'd say that (1) looks like a reasonable bet.
[...]
Brian
John Atkinson
> On Aug 13, 10:20 am, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 08:10:55 -0700 (PDT), lorad
>> <lorad...@cs.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Aug 12, 11:44 am, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 23:24:58 -0700 (PDT),
>>>> "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com" <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Aug 12, 1:48 am, John Atkinson <johna...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>>> Latin 'serpens' is the present participle of 'serpere',
>>>>>> to creep. PIE *serp-.
>>>>> Surely, its creep meaning comes from its serpent meaning.
>>>>> sarpa* is serpent in Sanskrit.
>>>> Both are from PIE root *serp- 'to creep', whence also
>>>> 'to creep, crawl, go slowly', whence <herpet锟絥> 'creeping
>>>> animal'.
>>> Very nice supposition..
>>> I will concur with that supposition - except for the non-real *PIE
>>> referral...
>> The concurrence of a linguistic ignoramus is meaningless.
>>
>>> to Latvian 'rapo' (to crawl).
>> No.
>
> Yes indeed. Game, set, and match.
> Additionally, Greek <h锟絩po> (crawl) and Latvian 'rapo' (crawl) are
> also related to 'reptile' :
> (OED): "reptile
> 1390, from O.Fr. reptile (1314), from L.L. reptile, neut. of reptilis
> (adj.) "creping, crawling," from rept-(um), pp. stem of repere "to
> crawl, creep," from PIE base *rep- "to creep, crawl" (cf. Litare h.
> replioju "to creep"). Used of persons of low character from 1749. :
>
> Cool, huh? (You should have checked your usual authoritative sources
> before leaping)
Yes, Lithuanian 'replioti' (and, I presume, Latvian 'rapo') is indeed
cognate to Latin 'repere', and therefore English 'reptile' -- all come
from north-western PIE *re:p-, crawl on all fours.
But Greek 'herpo' and Latin 'serpere', English 'serpent' are from a
different PIE word, *serpo-, to crawl on one's belly. Which is not
quite the same thing, so it's not surprising that Latin, like PIE, had
different words for them -- and for the animals that that use them to
get around -- Latin 'serpens', snake, Late Latin 'reptile', lizards and
the like).
Note that your OED quote above doesn't mention any of the "serp-" words
at all. So it's you that are making a wild and unjustified leap in
claiming that it's evidence that "Greek <h锟絩po> (crawl) and Latvian
'rapo' (crawl) are [...] related [...]".
[...]
J.
Ruud Harmsen
sci.lang:
>> > Yes, as you say.. it can be there... and it is very minimal.
>> > But the primary sound remains an aspirated English 'h'.
>>
>> No.
>
>Yes.
>Have a russian conjugate 'hochu' for you.
Dutch has both /h/ and /x/, and one of the typical traits of a Russian
accent to our ears is that the vast majority of their attempts at /h/
we perceive as /x/. QED.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
John Atkinson
[...]
>
> You were still playing around with you misconstrued gastrointestinal
> nematodes - while everyone else was taking about open range annelids
> and crawlers.
I'll leave it to "everyone else" to decide what was being talked about,
and which of us made the most sense. I don't think there's any point in
repeating the same things over and over again, so I'll deviate to expand
on the the "worm" concept a bit.
Biologically, worm-like animals occur in many widely separated phyla, in
particular Platyhelminthes, Annelidi, and Nematoda. Each of these three
contains both free-living species and parasites. In particular,
nematodes make up the greatest proportion of the soil biomass. There
are also the worm-like larvae of insects.
In the languages I know a bit about, all or most of these animals are
known by the same generic name -- in English, 'worm', in Spanish
'gusano' or 'lombriz'', in Swahili 'mchango'. As far as I can gather,
the same is true for Lithuanian 'kirmele'. Particular kinds of worms
are usually distinguished by modifiers (as in English, tapeworm (a
platyhelminth), earthworm (an annelid), threadworm (a nematode) -- and
dozens of others). A few particular kinds of "worm" have unrelated
names (in English, fluke, leech, maggot). None of these languages make
a basic contrast in nomenclature between parasitic worms, worms that
live in the soil, and worms that live in the water.
I gather from this thread that Latvian is unusual in that in that
language "cerms" is restricted to parasitic worms, while "tarps" is
restricted to free-living worms (perhaps just to those that live in the
soil? What are marine worms called in Latvian?)
John.
John Atkinson
> On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 11:37:53 GMT, John Atkinson
> <john...@bigpond.com> wrote in
> <news:l0chm.11688$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au> in
> sci.lang:
>
> [...]
>
>> OK, I didn't "conjecture" anything but I will now. Or, rather, I'll
>> simply spell out in detail what should be obvious to all from what's
>> already been said.
>
>> Lithuanian "kirmis" and Russian "c^erv'" both mean "worm", and clearly
>> come, through well-established sound changes, from Proto-Balto-Slavic
>> *kr.mis. (Aside: The -v- in the Slavic words comes from a suffix.)
>
> Derksen gives PBSl *kir-m/w-i-, PSl čьrvь (c^UvI).
>
>> The Proto-Baltic form would have been "kirmis".
>
>> But the cognate Latvian word is <cerms> (pronounced [tserms]).
>
> Derksen gives <cirmis>.
That looks like it might be from early Latvian, and the antecedent of
modern <cerms>
> There's also an Old Prussian
> <girmis> 'maggot'.
Do you have the Old Prussian for "mole"? If so, does it look like it
might be cognate with Lithuanian/Latvian <kurmis>/<kurms>? Or, for that
matter, with Russian <krot>?
>> Why not [kirms] or [kerms]?
>
>> Two obvious possibilities:
>
>> Conjecture (1): [k] becomes palatised to [ts] before a
>> front vowel in Latvian, similar to what happened in
>> Slavonic, but much later, after Latvian split from
>> Lithuanian. Anyone who knows anything about Baltic
>> linguistics (that's not me!) could no doubt say whether
>> this is so or not -- are there other words where <k> in
>> Lithuanian corresponds to <c> in Latvian?
>
> I found a little data in an exercise in reconstruction from
> a linguistics course. (They seem to be presented in a
> mixture of standard and phonetic orthography.)
>
> Lat. <cits>, Lith. <kitas>, Latgal. <ciits> 'other'
> Lat. <pietsi>, Lith. <peNki>, Latg. <piitsi> 'five'
> Lat. <kacens>, Lith. <katSiukas>, Latg. <kakiens> 'kitten'
> Lat. <daudz>, Lith. <daug>, Latg. <doudzi> 'many'
>
> I'd say that (1) looks like a reasonable bet.
I'd agree. Thanks.
The "kitten" words don't fit well with the rest, but they don't go back
to the proto-language anyway. Rather, they're diminutives of 'kate',
cat, which (as also in Germanic, Slavic, etc) is a loan from Late Latin
'cattus'. So they don't count.
John.
John Atkinson
> Brian M. Scott wrote:
[...]
>> Lat. <cits>, Lith. <kitas>, Latgal. <ciits> 'other'
>> Lat. <pietsi>, Lith. <peNki>, Latg. <piitsi> 'five'
>> Lat. <kacens>, Lith. <katSiukas>, Latg. <kakiens> 'kitten'
>> Lat. <daudz>, Lith. <daug>, Latg. <doudzi> 'many'
>>
>> I'd say that (1) looks like a reasonable bet.
>
> I'd agree. Thanks.
>
> The "kitten" words don't fit well with the rest, but they don't go back
> to the proto-language anyway. Rather, they're diminutives of 'kate',
> cat, which (as also in Germanic, Slavic, etc) is a loan from Late Latin
> 'cattus'. So they don't count.
More accurately, the Latvian and Latgal words seem to be direct
borrowings of German "kaetzchen", kitten, the German diminutive of
"katze", (or rather, its early Low German equivalent) while the
Lithuanian is "kate", cat, with the Lithuanian diminutive suffix "-iukas"
J.
Yusuf B Gursey
: lorad wrote:
: John.
in turkish kurt (also a taboo word for"wolf") could mean maggot or
parasitic worm (originally "maggot" or "worm in general"). solucan
(c = j) is a loanword from arabic Sawlaja:n "staff with a curved end" (I
think ottoman turkish preserved that meaning in addition) is for
"worm"(parasitic or not). for "parasite" there are the loan words tufeyli^
(from arabic Tufayliyy ; it seems to come from the dimunitive for "child"
plus relational suffix) ands more recently simply parazit are used.
Brian M. Scott
<lora...@cs.com> wrote in
<news:69d8858d-5ee7-4757...@v36g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang:
> On Aug 13, 9:29яПНam, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 07:44:10 -0700 (PDT), lorad
>> <lorad...@cs.com> wrote in
>> <news:4a484531-abd8-442c...@v36g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>
>> in sci.lang:
>>> On Aug 12, 11:50яПНpm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 23:21:46 -0700 (PDT), lorad
>>>> <lorad...@cs.com> wrote in
>>>> <news:fb0c7daf-da5a-4764...@h31g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
>>>> in sci.lang:
>>>> [...]
>>>>> One does not say .'Ya khochu'.. rather it is expressed 'Ya
>>>>> hochu'
>>>> You need to listen more carefully. яПНThe velar friction is
>>>> sometimes pretty minimal, but it's there.
>>> Yes, as you say.. it can be there... and it is very minimal.
>>> But the primary sound remains an aspirated English 'h'.
>> No.
> Yes.
> Have a russian conjugate 'hochu' for you.
You mean 'conjugate яПНяПНяПНяПНяПНяПН'. I've heard it many times, from
different Russians.
Brian M. Scott
<john...@bigpond.com> wrote in
<news:elwhm.11868$ze1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au> in
sci.lang:
[...]
> Do you have the Old Prussian for "mole"?
I'm afraid not.
Brian
John Atkinson
[...]
> in turkish kurt (also a taboo word for "wolf") could mean maggot or
> parasitic worm (originally "maggot" or "worm in general").
Obviously, this is cognate with Russian krot and Latvian kurms, both
meaning mole. The resemblance both phonetically and semantically makes
it a sure thing.
J.
Yusuf B Gursey
: Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
: [...]
I would say that it is coincidence.
: J.
PaulJK
Same can be said about W.Slavic. Czech has both /h/ and /x/.
Typically, Russians find it quite difficult to pronounce voiced /h/.
E.g. Cz <hlad> (hunger) comes out sounding like <chlad> (coolness).
It is especially noticable when /h/ is followed by a vowel.
pjk
Dušan Vukotić
Vasmer says: "...comparison with Lith. kùrmis (mole; cf. Lith.
kirminas 'worm') is unacceptable." Most probably, krot 'mole' comes
from the Slavic verb riti (burrow, root out, rout); the loss of the
initial velar like in Serb. graditi 'build, make' vs. raditi 'work' or
kretati se 'move' and ritati se 'to buck, to move violently', like in
OE gerǣdan/hreddan, ON rydhja, Ger. retten, Eng. redd and rid (loss of
the initial /h/ in hreddan), Serb. urediti 'to put in order' (from
*həred-; hence Serb. ured 'office', the place where things are being
arranged).
DV
Dušan Vukotić
> In sci.lang John Atkinson <johna...@bigpond.com> wrote in <XyKhm.11984$ze1.8...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>:
> : Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>
> : [...]
>
> :> in turkish kurt (also a taboo word for "wolf") could mean maggot or
> :> parasitic worm (originally "maggot" or "worm in general").
>
> : Obviously, this is cognate with Russian krot and Latvian kurms, both
> : meaning mole. The resemblance both phonetically and semantically makes
> : it a sure thing.
>
> I would say that it is coincidence.
>
> : J.
Turkish kurt (wolf) might be the Serbo-Slavic loanword (Serb. hrt
(greyhound; from PIE *(k)ren-; Serb. krenuti, kreni 'move, run').
There are Serbian variations of krenuti like jurnuti 'rush' and žuriti
'rush' (Serb. žurno 'hastily, hurried'), all probably related to OE
hradian 'haste, quicken, accelerate'; cf. Serb. kretanje 'movement'.
And even kurt (worm, maggot) might be a loanword from some of IE
languages (cf. Serb. crvotočina 'woodworm'; Sp. carcoma; also Serb.
crkotina 'carcass' (crv 'worm' + kot 'animal, cattle').
The other possibility may be that it is related to grind (Serb. gristi
'bite', krnjiti/krattit 'truncate, shorten'; Ger. kürzen; hence Serb.
grinja 'moth, maggot' (cf. Skt. khard 'bite').
DV
Dušan Vukotić
Also Skt. खर्जु kharju 'worm, scratching, itching'
DV
Panu
> In sci.lang John Atkinson <johna...@bigpond.com> wrote in <VZuhm.11849$ze1.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>:
I knew that kurt meant wolf, but is it really a taboo word?
could mean maggot or
> parasitic worm (originally "maggot" or "worm in general"). solucan
> (c = j) is a loanword from arabic Sawlaja:n "staff with a curved end" (I
> think ottoman turkish preserved that meaning in addition) is for
> "worm"(parasitic or not). for "parasite" there are the loan words tufeyli^
> (from arabic Tufayliyy ; it seems to come from the dimunitive for "child"
> plus relational suffix) ands more recently simply parazit are used.
In Finnish, "mato" is the basic word for "worm". I am not sure, but I
think it is a German loanword related to German "Made", Swedish "mask"
and Icelandic "madhkur" (dh here used for the letter edh). Insect
larvae are called "toukka", but I tend to think this differentiation
is due to recent learned standardization. "Mato" is the word used for
parasitic worms, too.
Yusuf B Gursey
: On Aug 15, 8:37?pm, Yusuf B Gursey <y...@TheWorld.com> wrote:
:> In sci.lang John Atkinson <johna...@bigpond.com> wrote in <VZuhm.11849$ze1.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>:
:>
:> : lorad wrote:
:>
:> : [...]
:> :>
:> :> You were still playing around with you misconstrued gastrointestinal
:> :> nematodes - while everyone else was taking about open range annelids
:> :> and crawlers.
:>
:> : I'll leave it to "everyone else" to decide what was being talked about,
:> : repeating the same things over and over again, so I'll deviate to expand
:> : on the the "worm" concept a bit.
:>
:> : Biologically, worm-like animals occur in many widely separated phyla, in
:> : particular Platyhelminthes, Annelidi, and Nematoda. Each of these three
:> : nematodes make up the greatest proportion of the soil biomass. ?There
:> : are also the worm-like larvae of insects.
:>
:> : In the languages I know a bit about, all or most of these animals are
:> : known by the same generic name -- in English, 'worm', in Spanish
:> : the same is true for Lithuanian 'kirmele'. ?Particular kinds of worms
:> : are usually distinguished by modifiers (as in English, tapeworm (a
:> : platyhelminth), earthworm (an annelid), threadworm (a nematode) -- and
:> : names (in English, fluke, leech, maggot). ?None of these languages make
:> : a basic contrast in nomenclature between parasitic worms, worms that
:> : live in the soil, and worms that live in the water.
:>
:> : I gather from this thread that Latvian is unusual in that in that
:> : language "cerms" is restricted to parasitic worms, while "tarps" is
:> : restricted to free-living worms (perhaps just to those that live in the
:> : soil? What are marine worms called in Latvian?)
:>
:> : John.
:>
:> in turkish kurt (also a taboo word for"wolf")
: I knew that kurt meant wolf, but is it really a taboo word?
well, it is confined to only one group of turkic languages (the SW or
oghuz group), and there is another turkic word for wolf that does not mean
worm or maggot. wolves were considered sacred among the early turks.
: could mean maggot or
Yusuf B Gursey
: On Aug 16, 5:27??am, Yusuf B Gursey <y...@TheWorld.com> wrote:
:> In sci.lang John Atkinson <johna...@bigpond.com> wrote in <XyKhm.11984$ze1.8...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>:
:> : Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
:>
:> : [...]
:>
:> :> in turkish kurt (also a taboo word for "wolf") could mean maggot or
:> :> parasitic worm (originally "maggot" or "worm in general").
:>
:> : Obviously, this is cognate with Russian krot and Latvian kurms, both
:> : it a sure thing.
:>
:> I would say that it is coincidence.
:>
:> : J.
: Turkish kurt (wolf) might be the Serbo-Slavic loanword (Serb. hrt
it was around before turks got into contact with serbians.
: (greyhound; from PIE *(k)ren-; Serb. krenuti, kreni 'move, run').
: There are Serbian variations of krenuti like jurnuti 'rush' and ??uriti
: 'rush' (Serb. ??urno 'hastily, hurried'), all probably related to OE
: hradian 'haste, quicken, accelerate'; cf. Serb. kretanje 'movement'.
: And even kurt (worm, maggot) might be a loanword from some of IE
: languages (cf. Serb. crvoto??ina 'woodworm'; Sp. carcoma; also Serb.
: crkotina 'carcass' (crv 'worm' + kot 'animal, cattle').
: The other possibility may be that it is related to grind (Serb. gristi
: 'bite', krnjiti/krattit 'truncate, shorten'; Ger. k??rzen; hence Serb.
Yusuf B Gursey
: In sci.lang Panu <craoi...@gmail.com> wrote in <d277d7a0-6794-4179...@f37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>:
: : On Aug 15, 8:37?pm, Yusuf B Gursey <y...@TheWorld.com> wrote:
: :> in turkish kurt (also a taboo word for"wolf")
: : I knew that kurt meant wolf, but is it really a taboo word?
: well, it is confined to only one group of turkic languages (the SW or
: oghuz group), and there is another turkic word for wolf that does not mean
: worm or maggot. wolves were considered sacred among the early turks.
Hasan Eren, a turkish linguist who studied in Hungary points out in his
etymological dictionary that in Hungary fe'reg "worm" is used in (rural ?)
dialects also for "wolf". IMHO Hungarians were intimate with old turkic
peoples and may have had similar taboos about wolves.
: : could mean maggot or
Dušan Vukotić
> In sci.lang Yusuf B Gursey <y...@theworld.com> wrote in <h69cdd$29...@pcls6.std.com>:
> : In sci.lang Panu <craoibhi...@gmail.com> wrote in <d277d7a0-6794-4179-b993-44314c187...@f37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>:
> : : On Aug 15, 8:37?pm, Yusuf B Gursey <y...@TheWorld.com> wrote:
>
> : :> in turkish kurt (also a taboo word for"wolf")
>
> : : I knew that kurt meant wolf, but is it really a taboo word?
>
> : well, it is confined to only one group of turkic languages (the SW or
> : oghuz group), and there is another turkic word for wolf that does not mean
> : worm or maggot. wolves were considered sacred among the early turks.
>
> Hasan Eren, a turkish linguist who studied in Hungary points out in his
> etymological dictionary that in Hungary fe'reg "worm" is used in (rural ?)
> dialects also for "wolf". IMHO Hungarians were intimate with old turkic
> peoples and may have had similar taboos about wolves.
Not féreg 'worm' but farkas 'wolf', although these two words really
look very close to each other. Hungarian farkas is, as far as I know,
the main and the only one 'precise' word for wolf inside the Magyar
vocabulary. Farkas 'wolf' may be a rhotacized Slavic volk 'wolf' (cf.
Skt. vṛka 'wolf').
DV
Yusuf B Gursey
Eren refered to a dialectical usage, not standard Magyar.
Dušan Vukotić
> > Not féreg 'worm' but farkas 'wolf', although these two words really
> > look very close to each other. Hungarian farkas is, as far as I know,
> > the main and the only one 'precise' word for wolf inside the Magyar
>
> Eren refered to a dialectical usage, not standard Magyar.
OK. I didn't know that.
DV
Odysseus
<673883c1-bac5-4b6a...@c2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
"ranjit_...@yahoo.com" <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 12, 1:48�am, John Atkinson <johna...@bigpond.com> wrote:
<snip>
> > 'worm', (cognates in other Germanic languages mostly = 'snake') and
> > Latin 'vermis' come from PIE *wrmi-, from #wer-, twist.
> >
> > Lithuanian 'kirmele', Latvian 'cerms', Russian 'cherv' ', Irish cruim',
> > Sanskrit 'krmi-', from PIE *kwrmi-, worm or bug.
>
> In modern Sanskrit pronunciation, it's usually krimi or krumi
> depending on where the Pandit is from. In Malayalam, it can be kr.mi
> with a syllabic trill.
FWIW English cognates are "crimson", originally the dye obtained from
the larvae of the shield-louse or kermes insect, the hemipterid _Kermes
vermilio_ (whose specific name -- with Eng. "vermilion" -- evidently
derives from _*wrmi-_), and "carmine", the dye from a bug-larva native
to the New World, that of the related cochineal insect, _Dactylopius
coccus_.
--
Odysseus