Which Groups are not Main Ones and Why?


My Intention with This Blog · Intentions and Theorems, Continued · Which Groups are not Main Ones and Why?

The rule of linguists is, for a word to be considered as Indo-European, it must exist (apart from modern loan words) in three groups of the Indo-European language ... family? ... or more. Here I am being concerned with, which words exist in "main groups" - totally ad hoc for this project.

Hittite and Tokharian have been better explored since Pokorny.* Or so I thought when doing the classification. There is another reason thugh : they are incompletely known and will remain so. The same is much more so the case for Venetic, Lydian, (ancient) Ligurian** (on which one is not even sure if it is Indo-European like Luwian or Pre-Indo-European like Basque) and the Sikel language.

Albanian was indeed known, but the history of the language is so recent, and its antique connections so diffuse (Illyrian or Thracian?), but above all, it is in the middle of a Sprachbund, so any connections to Romance, Greek, Slavonic (or for that matter Turkish) could easily be Sprachbund phenomena.

I have counted P Celtic and Q Celtic, Indian and Iranian, Baltic and Slavic as two different groups in each case. This is against normal linguistic consensus.

However, in cases when "three main groups" involve two of any of these pairs, adding a "real third" from above could save the day ... when it comes to the testing of a word. But this is not quite what this project is about, and I started writing this post before having a clear idea how to proceed on this project, and now it partly serves to preserve a link to Pokorny./HGL

*https://indo-european.info/pokorny-etymological-dictionary/whnjs.htm
** Modern Ligurian = Romance dialects like Genoese. Only name in common with ancient Ligurian.

Commentaires

Enregistrer un commentaire

Posts les plus consultés de ce blog

Intentions and Theorems, Continued

My Intention with This Blog · Intentions and Theorems, Continued · Which Groups are not Main Ones and Why? Suppose we find lots of "adjacent" groups (like Celtic Germanic, Celtic Italic, Germanic Italic, Germanic (Illyric) Greek, Italic (Illyric) Greek) preserving a word not preserved at "opposite end" of the geographical spread of Indo-European language group. Couldn't this be just the chance that adjacency tends to help adjacent groups to help each other to keep a word? Well, adjacency would help them to keep the word, but lack of it would not doom the word at the opposite end of the geographical spread. So, the Sprachbund theorem (by Trubetskoy, for those who do not know the founder of Balkan linguistics) would get a boost if "adjacent" plus "previously adjacent" groups were very prevalent in the preservation of words. And the proto-language or PIE theorem (by lots, from Bopp and Grimm to Pokorny, whose lexicon I am using) would e...
Lire la suite

All 10 main groups

1 aĝ- i aĝō: Ind ai. ájati `treibt', Ir av. azaiti `treibt, führt weg', Arm arm. acem `führe, bringe', Gr gr. ἄγω `führe' (Aor. ἤγαγον, ἤξα sind jung), It lat. agō `treibe, führe, verhandle' (Pf. ēgī mit Ablautneuerung), osk. Imper. actud = umbr. aitu `agito', osk. acum `agere', QC air. ad-aig (*aget) `adigit', PC acymr. agit, hegit, jünger ëyt (*agīti), daneben die starke Flexion in cymr. corn. bret. a (*aget) `geht'; QC t-Prät. air. ro-da-acht `trieb sie fort', PC cymr. aeth (*ag-t) `iit' usw., s. Pedersen KG. II 451 ff., QC air. āin `Treiben, Spiel' (aus *agnis), PC gallo-rom. *and-agnis `großer Schritt', frz. andain `Schwade, Sensenhieb', afrz. `Weitschritt', Gm anord. aka `Fahren' (Prät. ōk wie ai. Gramm. āja); ags. ac `aber, sondern' (wörtl. `geh!' wie lat. age); Non-Main toch. B ak-, AB āk- `reisen, führen'. ij to-Partiz.: Gr ἀκτός, It lat. āctus, QC & PC kelt. *am...
Lire la suite