From: connolly@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: Surprising cognates
Date: 14 Dec 92 08:38:56 -0600
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <1992Dec11.203354.17078@leland.Stanford.EDU>, alderson@elaine46.Stanford.EDU (Rich Alderson) writes:
> In article <1992Dec9.153824.4488@memstvx1.memst.edu>, connolly@memstvx1 writes:
>>In article <1992Dec9.185328.18592@leland.Stanford.EDU>, alderson@elaine46.Stanford.EDU (Rich Alderson) writes:
> 
>>>You have to leave out the English word; according to my Webster program,
>>>"wight" in the meaning "valiant, skilled in fighting" is borrowed from one of
>>>the Scandinavian languages, and therefore does not count as a cognate.
>>
>>This is strange if true: Germanic /ht/ regularly went to /tt/ in Old Norse,
>>apparently at a rather early date.  The English spelling -ght is normally
>>found only where earlier English had [xt], which in Old English was spelled
>><ht>....
> 
> The citation from the Webster program in question follows, to provide data for
> the discussion:
> 
> [PHOTO:  Recording initiated  Thu 10-Dec-92 9:40AM]
> 
> @webster
> Word: wight
>            _
> 1 wight \'wit\ n [ME, creature, thing, fr. OE wiht; akin to OHG wiht creature,
>   thing, OSlav ves{hachek}ti{breve} thing] : a living being : CREATURE 
>                                               _
> 2 wight adj [ME, of Scand origin; akin to ON vigr skilled in fighting (neut. 
>    _                 _
>   vigt); akin to OE wigan to fight -- more at VICTOR] archaic : VALIANT, 
>   STALWART 
> 
> Word: victor
> vic.tor \'vik-t*r\ n [ME, fr. L, fr. victus, pp. of vincere to conquer, win; 
>               _
>   akin to OE wigan to fight, OSlav ve{hachek}ku{breve} strength] : one that 
>   defeats an enemy or opponent : WINNER -- victor adj 
> 
> Word: week
>         _
> week \'wek\ n [ME weke, fr. OE wicu, wucu; akin to OHG wehha week, L vicis 
>                            _
>   change, alternation, OE wir wire -- more at WIRE]  1 a : one of a series of 
>   seven-day cycles used in various calendars  b (1) : a week beginning with a 
>   specified day or containing a specified holiday <the ~ of the 18th> <Easter 
>   ~>  (2) : a week appointed for public recognition of some cause <Fire 
>   Prevention Week>  2 a : any seven consecutive days  b : a series of regular 
>   working, business, or school days during each seven-day period  3 : a time 
>   seven days before or after a specified day 
> 
> Word: wire
>           _                                   _
> 1 wire \'wi(*)r\ n, often attrib [ME, fr. OE wir; akin to OHG wiara fine gold,
>       _
>   L viere to plait, Gk iris rainbow]  1 a : metal in the form of a usu. very 
>   flexible thread or slender rod  b : a thread or rod of such material
> 	<remainder of definitions deleted>
> 
> Word: weak
>         _                                            _
> weak \'wek\ adj [ME weike, fr. ON veikr; akin to OE wican to yield, L vicis 
>   change -- more at WEEK]  1 : lacking strength : as  a : deficient in 
>   physical vigor : FEEBLE, DEBILITATED  b : not able to sustain or exert much 
>   weight, pressure, or strain  c : not able to resist external force or 
>   withstand attack
> 	<remainder of definitions deleted>
>   
> Word: ^C
> @pop
> 
> [PHOTO:  Recording terminated Thu 10-Dec-92 9:41AM]
> 
> Now in the citation for wight(2), the Icelandic neuter form vi:gt is given.  If
> this were the late OE/early ME form borrowed, I would not be surprised at the
> spelling with <gh> in English.

I agree that the phonology is probably OK, but it is still odd that the
neuter form was borrowed.

> I also included the citation for "week" since it was related to the original
> question, and the homophone "weak" since it is in the semantic range of the
> word "wight(2)."  Because of the cross-reference, I've also included "wire."
> 
> I'm not overly impressed with the posited relationship among week, weak, and
> wire, but until I can get to an OED or something else turstworthy, I can't
> argue more than "I don't like a Latin /k/ matching up with an OE /k/."

Actually, the /k/ in both branches is no problem, since the PIE /k/ and /g/
can perfectly well be extensions to a root *wei- or the like.  But there
are complications in the phonology, some of which I explored in an article
"Indo-European i > Germanic e" in PBB 99 (1977).  The root 'bend, turn'
shows clear evidence for a laryngeal in many forms (note the long i: in
Sanskrit _vi:ci-_ 'crookedness' and Latvian _vi:kstu_ 'bend'); the most
likely form for the root would be *_weHi-_ or *_weiH-_, and the zero-grade
of either would contain long i: regularly in Sanskrit, sporadically else-
where.  English _wire_ and Old High German _wiara_ 'gold or silver wire'
probably reflect PIE */wHi-r-/ (*/wiH-r-), with the former realized as
[w@Hir-].  (Old High German_wiara_ contains the mysterious vowel e: secun-
dum, which I claimed in a 1979 article in PBB 101 is a less usual reflex
of [@Hi]).  _Week_ (OE _wicu_) comes from the same root: the PIE sequence
_Hi_ yielded a high central vowel in Proto-Germanic which appears in various
older Germanic dialects as either _i_ (the preferred form in Old English)
or _e_ (a 50-50 proposition before non-high vowels in Old Norse and Old High
German): thus for 'weak' we have Old Norse _vika_ but Old High German
_wehha_ (modern _Woche_).  German _Wechsel_ 'alternation' also belongs.

In contrast, the root seen in _weak_ shows no sign of a laryngeal: we
have Sanskrit _vijati_ 'shrink back', not *_vi:jati_.  So the 'yield'-
root is not related to the 'turn' root of _week_.

Back to _wight_: I don't have my Pokorny at hand, but I think we may safely
separate it from both of these roots on semantic grounds alone.  It is
probably cognate with Latin _vi-n-co_ 'conquer' and Lithuanian _vigrus_,
_viglas_ 'rapid, mobile, skilled', where short _i_ militates against a
laryngeal (but does not exclude it).  Again, the velar is an extension,
and while Latin reflects PIE /k/, Lithuanian must reflect /g/ or /gh/,
while Icelandic _vi:gt_ can reflect either /k/ or /gh/ but not /g/.

I think the separation of the roots above is desirable on semantic 
grounds alone, and I am confident in the phonology I have proposed for
Germanic too.  But I must add several caveats: (1) many Indo-Europeanists
still try to ignore laryngeals wherever possible, and the traditional
handbooks don't even consider them (Lord knows the OED doesn't); (2) the
explanations that I published in 1977 and 1979 have, to my knowledge,
been politely ignored, so they cannot be regarded as established or even
mildly respectable; (3) the 1977 article in particular has great problems
in the Proto-Germanic reconstructions, which still show laryngeals in all
positions (only intervocalic laryngeals are plausible, and then only in
very early Proto-Germanic).  This means that the mysterious extra short
high central vowel I posit for Proto-Germanic was a phoneme -- which may
explain why the futhark had *six* vowel letters.  I proposed in a very
obscure 1979 article that the "yew"-rune, the extra vowel sign, was
originally used to write this phoneme.  Unfortunately, the Runic evi-
dence doesn't support this at all, though it doesn't exclude it either.

For those who wish to read my stuff in full: PBB is the traditional
mark for _Beitraege zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur_,
which the indices now abbreviate to BGDSL.  PBB, of course, stands for
"Paul-Braune-Beitraege".  My articles were in the West German publica-
tion, not the East German one.

--Leo Connolly
Newsgroups: sci.lang