User:Chrysophylax/pa1: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Chrysophylax (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
Chrysophylax (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
==Introduction== | ==Introduction== | ||
For a long time scholars have harboured suspicions regarding the general similarity between a | For a long time scholars have harboured suspicions regarding the general similarity between a select set of words concerning trees and gemstones in the Tjero-Khazian and Tenarian languages. I postulate a shared period of intense lexical contact 5000 BP between a late form of Proto-Tjero-Khazian (PTK) and an early stage of Proto-Tenarian (PT). | ||
==Part 1 : From Proto-Tenarian to Proto-Tjero-Khazian== | ==Part 1 : From Proto-Tenarian to Proto-Tjero-Khazian== | ||
===STONE=== | ===STONE=== | ||
#{{rec|ot’o- | #{{rec|ot’o-k}}, {{rec|ot’o-moχ}} | ||
#:Khz. ''ašakh'' ‘stone’, ''ašamô'' ‘gravel’; Tjer. ru’ut ‘jewel’. | #:Khz. ''ašakh'' ‘stone’, ''ašamô'' ‘gravel’; Tjer. ru’ut ‘jewel’. | ||
#:The root for stone, tentatively isolated as *ot’o-, | #:The root for stone, tentatively isolated as *ot’o-, is a close match of PT. *oʔto (Cf. OVa. ''ooton'' ‘aquamarine’, WLi. ''vodoig'' ‘jewelry box’ ( < Late PT. *oʔte-ns {accusative form} ). The lack of class suffixes in the Tenarian daughters' reflexes hints to the origins of this root being in Proto-Tenarian. | ||
#{{rec|laχa-}} | #{{rec|laχa-}} | ||
#:Khz. ''alâri'' ‘ruby’ ( < {{rec|laχa-zi}}); Tjer. ''lahaze'' ‘blue dye’ (id.), ''lahanu'' ‘blueberries’ ( < {{rec|laχa-moχ}}). | #:Khz. ''alâri'' ‘ruby’ ( < {{rec|laχa-zi}}); Tjer. ''lahaze'' ‘blue dye’ (id.), ''lahanu'' ‘blueberries’ ( < {{rec|laχa-moχ}}). | ||
#: | #:PT. *təlaqa ‘chisel’, composed of *təla- ‘hard’ and -qa ‘tool-suffix’, offers an interesting opportunity for resolving this item. It is not inconceivable that an early variant of Proto-Tenarian which had already dropped the weak schwa would result in *tlaqa. If this is the variant that was loaned, the forbidden onset cluster *tl would have been resolved by simple deletion of the first element as seen in the oldest strata of Proto-Indo-European loanwords (cf. Khz. ''lašaddu'' ‘suffering’ < PTK {{rec|lat’o-k}} < PIE. [[wiktionary:Appendix:Proto-Indo-European/telh%E2%82%82-|*tḷh₂tós]]). | ||
Latest revision as of 02:59, 4 February 2015
Concerning a few shared lexical items of the agricultural and mineral domains in the word stock of the Tjero-Khazian and Tenarian families.
Introduction
For a long time scholars have harboured suspicions regarding the general similarity between a select set of words concerning trees and gemstones in the Tjero-Khazian and Tenarian languages. I postulate a shared period of intense lexical contact 5000 BP between a late form of Proto-Tjero-Khazian (PTK) and an early stage of Proto-Tenarian (PT).
Part 1 : From Proto-Tenarian to Proto-Tjero-Khazian
STONE
- *ot’o-k, *ot’o-moχ
- Khz. ašakh ‘stone’, ašamô ‘gravel’; Tjer. ru’ut ‘jewel’.
- The root for stone, tentatively isolated as *ot’o-, is a close match of PT. *oʔto (Cf. OVa. ooton ‘aquamarine’, WLi. vodoig ‘jewelry box’ ( < Late PT. *oʔte-ns {accusative form} ). The lack of class suffixes in the Tenarian daughters' reflexes hints to the origins of this root being in Proto-Tenarian.
- *laχa-
- Khz. alâri ‘ruby’ ( < *laχa-zi); Tjer. lahaze ‘blue dye’ (id.), lahanu ‘blueberries’ ( < *laχa-moχ).
- PT. *təlaqa ‘chisel’, composed of *təla- ‘hard’ and -qa ‘tool-suffix’, offers an interesting opportunity for resolving this item. It is not inconceivable that an early variant of Proto-Tenarian which had already dropped the weak schwa would result in *tlaqa. If this is the variant that was loaned, the forbidden onset cluster *tl would have been resolved by simple deletion of the first element as seen in the oldest strata of Proto-Indo-European loanwords (cf. Khz. lašaddu ‘suffering’ < PTK *lat’o-k < PIE. *tḷh₂tós).