I thought that the word "birch" was
related to "bright", ie, the light-coloured tree. Is this so? Then it
is unambiguous, isn't it? --Marc
This etymology seems obvious, though
*berhtaz is only found in Germanic, i.e. is far less
well-attested than the birch name supposedly derived from it. Indic has a
related bhra:j- < *bHraxg- 'shine, flash',
hence bhra:ja- 'glittering'. There's something funny about this
root -- too many consonants, as if it were an obscured and lexicalised
compound. The alternation *bHerxg- ~ *bHraxg-
is probably due to PIE r-metathesis (as in *ters- ~
*tres- 'shake') rather than root-suffix ablaut;
*bHerxg- would not have done as the phonetic realisation of a
verb stem, and metathesis would have fixed its structural flaws. Who knows if
the verb and the adjective are not derived from the tree name!
("birch-white", "glitter like
birch-bark"). Piotr
Yes, but then the tree was still
unambiguously the berch -- at least in Germanic & Indic?
Marc