I WROTE:
<<Given that, the best candidate might be: Greek <bibro:sko:> means to eat
up, chew up; in its passive forms, e.g., <bebro:oetai>, <bebro:menoi>,
something that is eaten, gnawed or chewed up.>>
PIOTR WROTE:
<<But here the root is Gk. bor-/bro:- < *gWerh3- 'devour'. It's reflexes in
the other IE languages (e.g. Latin voro:) are not beaver-like at all!>>
If words were only about phonetics, everything would be neat and dandy. But
unfortunately words also have complex meanings related to the outside world.
Phonology is an impressive science, but it tends to spill over its authority
into semantics and meaning and that is where we can get into trouble.
Piotr says that the word <voro> in Latin is not "beaver-like". But that is
not phonology. That is his impression. If this were his only objection to
Greek "bibro-as the source of the beaver word, it would certainly be worth
looking into whether or not Piotr may be inaccurate about this. But since
there are many objections, we only take this as an example.
And it goes without saying that the answer cannot be based on superficial
impressions of what the beaver could or could not have meant to people who
lived 1000's of years ago. We need to look a little closer
L&S translates <voro:> as to swallow whole, swallow up, eat greedily,
devour... Of things, to devour, swallow up, overwhelm, destroy,....
Now, just as a first impression, beavers don't swallow anything whole. But
anything with the huge front teeth of the beaver would certainly seem capable
of eating up something. And we do know that beavers eat trees -- which
certainly seems rather ravenous compared to other animals.
But devour, destroy, overwhelm?
What could a beaver destroy?
Here's a picture of the beaver from the point-of-view of destructiveness and
the damage his feeding and building habits could have done in ancient times
to human interest:
"Beaver leave more signs than any other animal except man. They cut down
numerous trees to get at the inner bark which is their principal food supply.
... Despite the obvious conservation benefits beaver provide,
it is only fair to acknowledge that as their numbers increased in the
mid-1900's, so did the
complaints about their destructive activities. To this day their presence in
an area is marked by controversy--to many people this persistent rodent is a
definite nuisance.
Not only do beavers cause flooding, but their need to constantly gnaw on wood
has led to the destruction of wooden bridges, forest and fruit tree
plantations and... ornamental planting. The beaver in the bottom portion of
this slide actually occupied a boathouse and started building a lodge, after
gnawing on the wood partitions and floor."
http://www.educationalimages.com/it030014.htm.
In order to learn how to protect your fruit and lumber trees against beavers,
go to
http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dfwmr/wildlife/beaver/index.htm.
This official New York State site offers "Beaver Damage Control Technique"
and will show you how to build wire fences to protect your valuable trees.
Or call in trappers if you can't stop them. There are numerous other reports
on the web on the degree of defoliation, both ancient and modern,
attributable to the beaver.
So just based on the above, one might disagree with Piotr on this small point
alone. Yes. <voro:> seems to fit the destructive side of the beaver just
fine, if one takes care to look into it.
Steve Long