Re: [tied] Re: a(i)s-

On Thu, 04 Oct 2001 10:49:47 -0000, tgpedersen@... wrote:

>In the given case, we have
>
>EIEC:
> *H2eH-
> (pres. *H2éHor) "burn, be hot"
>
> *H2éHo:s
> ha:s (acc. ha:ssan) "soda ash, potash; soap;
> (pl.) ashes" Hittite
>
> *H2eH-seH3 "hearth"
>
>Orël & Stol'bova
>82:
> *?es- "fire"
>
>Are you saying that if someone doesn't provide rules with which to
>relate these two roots, then they are not related?

That's basically the idea. They may "be related" in some kind of
Platonic sense, but to try and prove they are related, we need rules.
For instance, that PAA *? and PIE *h2 regularly correspond in the
Anlaut (I'd be *very* surprised if they did).

>Let me give you an example: everone and his brother agrees that
>Greek "pyrgos" and German "Burg" etc are related and that they were
>borrowed probably from AfroAsiatic.

Well, *I* don't.

>And don't forget either the context of the argument: Miguel claimed
>that the PIE bronze and iron words were not related, since the former
>(but not the latter) was derivable from the *H2eH- "heat" word.

No, I claim the PIE bronze and the Celtic iron word are not related,
regardless of any connection of the former with the "heat" word.