From: connolly@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: Surprising cognates
Date: 15 Dec 92 06:27:24 GMT
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <8347@charon.cwi.nl>, aeb@cwi.nl (Andries Brouwer) writes:
> connolly@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
> ...
> lots and lots of stuff omitted
> ...
>>Anyway: *no* Romance language uses a reflex of _vicis_ for 'week' --
>>small wonder, since _vicis_ is a defective noun: the citation form is,
>>in fact, genitive singular, since there was no nominative singular!
>>
>>In another post today I went into the question of the root in detail.
>>Scholars have long assumed that the velar is an extension, and this seems
>>correct, so the presence of /k/ in both Latin and Germanic is no problem,
>>since the latter would reflect a /g/ extension which must be posited in
>>any event.  So sorry, there's no way I, or the big guns in Indo-European
>>studies, would support the idea that _week_ etc. are borrowed from Latin.
>
> Well, in an earlier post I said much the same (discussing *vei- with
> extensions *veig- and *veik-), but maybe this never reached your site.
> [Although I didnt think it necessary to introduce laryngeals.]
>
> It is true that *veig- also has representatives in Germanic languages,
> but these have rather different meanings. (See my earlier post.)
 
The thread about the Roman day names was here, but I didn't read it.
(Life is short!)  So I missed your post.  I brought in laryngeals
only to distinguish the multiple roots that were confounded in the
post from the on-line Webster's, and also because I happened to have
separated the roots on that basis some 15 years ago.
 
> The Romans used an 8-day week ("Nundinum"), and took in imperial times
> the 7-day week from the Jews (and the names of the days from the
> Egyptians). As far as I can see, there is no reason to oppose the
> idea that the Latin "vices" (used by monks to denote weekly shifts)
> was taken into some Germanic languages, say some time in the third
> century.
 
Doesn't this pose chronological problems?  Monasticism was not well
established in the West in the third century, and the Germanic peoples
did not have the sort of contact with the Roman world that developed later.
(Of course, a later date would not be impossible.)
 
> Please avoid "ad hominem" arguments;
 
I do avoid them.  What did I say that could be construed as one?
 
> both of us think that we know
> what we are talking about. It is unnecessary to point out that
> "vicis"/"vices" is defective - I am very well aware of that,
 
I'm glad -- but many readers of this group don't know that, or even
what a defective noun is.  While we're certainly not writing for the
great unwashed, I try to remember that the majority of readers seem
to be computer specialists, some with a background in syntax, but
very few with a knowledge of historical linguistics.
 
> and it doesnt
> prevent Italian or French to have "vece" or "fois", quite ordinary words.
 
True.  But I cannot resist pointing out that neither means 'week', and
that the initial f- in French needs explanation.
 
> I think it bad practice to invoke "bug guns". Give arguments.
 
I do, and did.  But it hardly needs saying that the big guns, though
certainly not always right, are more impressive than I.  The argumentum
ex auctoritate is notoriously the weakest kind, but that's not to say
that it is without merit in all cases.
 
> [Not that it matters, but Kluge supports the idea "borrowed from Latin".
 
Are we looking at the same edition of Kluge?  Mine -- the 21st edition
of 1975 -- says "Dieser Begriff [not: "Dieses Wort"!] ist in vorschrist-
licher Zeit von den Roemern zu allen Germanen gelangt."  True, he calls
the etymon 'week' "gemeingermanisch" rather than "urgermanisch", but
he says nothing about borrowing.
 
I'm sorry if I offended you with my post, though I still don't see quite
how.  I hate to say it, but you have somewhat offended me by with your
comments about ad hominem argumentation and appeals to authority.  But
let it pass.  We should concentrate on the fascinating phenomena of
language rather than on personal offense.
 
--Leo Connolly
Newsgroups: sci.lang