I agree with Glen here: *wodr(/-en-,
etc.) is as widespread as anyone could wish, while *akWah2- is
Germano-Italic -- most likely an areal term. The Tocharian and Anatolian verbs
meaning "drink" need not be related to *akWah2-. Their vocalism is
somewhat problematic; the root in question is often reconstructed as *e:gWH- and
connected with Latin e:brius 'drunk' and Greek ne:pho: 'drink no wine'. If
there is an "active" water term that could be PIE, it's *h2ap-, an old-looking
consonantal stem well represented in hydronymy.
Peter surely means pairs like *pah2wr :
*ngnis (or however the latter should be reconstructed) for "fire". It does seem
as if such pairs had existed, though it also seems that some inanimate names of
natural elements could be "animated" by morphological rather than lexical means
(we have discussed such processes before).
Piotr
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 8:24 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] The Middle Voice.
Peter:
>There are a number of words which seem to
have two lexemes in PIE >(the
>debate about akwa and wodr is on this
list at the moment). >Could one be
>the active form, and the
other the stative, as some >writers suggest?
But what is **akwa?? How
is it attested as the IE word for "water" other
than in a couple of western
IE branches? It is quite clear that *wodr is
well attested as such,
however.
- gLeN