Handfuls of Unrelated Forms

[X99Lynx at aol.com]

In a message dated 6/28/2001 4:38:04 AM, alderson+mail at panix.com writes:

<< Once again, the crucial importance of vowel length has been missed.
The words for _arrow_ and _poison_ both begin with a *long* vowel, /i:/,
while the present active participle of _ei~mi_ "go" (accent is also
important, since this is a different verb from _eimi'_ "be") begins with a
*short* vowel /i/.

Further, in the accusative /i:on/ the final consonant is etymologically < *-m,
as is obvious from a perusal of the introductory handbooks, while in the
participle /ion/ (neuter nominative/accusative singular), /-n/ is final due to
the Greek rule dropping final -t (cf. the stem, found in the genitive
_iontos_).  There is nothing at all to connect these forms historically; to
claim otherwise is to return to the days of _lucus a non lucendo_ and the
fly-foot fox.

Steve, you have a terrible habit of grabbing handfuls of unrelated forms which
look to you as if their semantics ought to connect them...>>

I'm sorry but this is REALLY undeserved.

1. Let me give you an earlier post on this list where you might have brought
all this up:
In a message dated 6/27/2001 9:20:37 PM, acnasvers at hotmail.com wrote:
<< the oxytone <i:os> 'arrow' referred by L&S to the root of <ienai> 'to
go'...>>
(<ienai> is th infinitive form of <eimi/ion>.)

So I was not the first to make this connection on this list or in print. And
so whatever sin I committed I'll promptly forward to Lidell-Scott.  And
perhaps also to co-lister DGK for repeating it without your analysis.

2. The connection of <ios>, arrow, to <eimi>, go through, was hardly of much
matter to my point, which has little to do with where <ios> came from.  I'm
guilty of going off on a tangent there, so I suppose I deserve it.  But I
hope that won't divert anyone from attending to my real point in the original
post on this.

3. I don't know how L-S found a relationship between <ion> and <eimi>, but
the lenghtening of the initial vowel in Greek to mark past time might have
applied in some way.  Augment could have been a device to separate <i:on>
arrow, neuter, nom, accus, voc [passed through?], from <ion>, passing
through, pres part, nom, accus, voc.  I should also point out that there are
forms of <eimi> that show an -m- <epic, <iomen>) and that there are forms of
<i:on> arrow that appear not to have the long i-, <ioin>, gen, dat, sing,
plu.   Another point is that L-S specifically refers the meaning "go through"
to the accusative form.

But how this all actually worked is something I can't answer.  But, once
again, if any of it is incorrect, you should hardly vent your wrath my way as
I am hardly the first to suggest it.

As to the comment about "unrelated forms":
Which forms are unrelated and which are not?  Well, the point I've been
trying to make is that "related" forms - in the sense of "genetic" forms -
may NOT be the answer to many of the "paleolinguistic" questions being
addressed here.

Most of these "alternative" explanations deal with BORROWED forms.  And I am
suggesting that a large handful of "unrelated" forms with strong semantic
identity ARE EVIDENCE of borrowing.  They may not prove borrowing, but they
are probative (the difference is important.)  Why are evidence?  Because a
big enough handful and a more careful understanding of historical context CAN
suggest an absence of coincidence.  The phonological rules are not always
clear, but I try to draw parallels where I can to other instances of
borrowing.

I do think there is a value on this list to hearing an alternative
point-of-view and a value to not dismissing it out of hand.  Or jumping the
gun about connections that I did not even originate.

Regards,
Steve Long