Re: bhratr

From: johnshocky
Message: 26283
Date: 2003-10-07

--- In, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 23:01:22 +0200, Piotr Gasiorowski
> <piotr.gasiorowski@...> wrote:
> >06-10-03 04:12, Fritz Saxl wrote:
> >
> >> Thinking about the IE words for "brother", sansk. bhratr, gr.
> >> lat.frater, germ. brodar, I realized that the germanic word is
> >> closely related to sanskrit than the others. Have you any
thoughts on this?
> >
> >The actual cognates of Skt. bHra:tar- ( bHrá:ta:) include
> >following:
> >
> >Avestan bra:ta:
> >Latin fra:ter
> >Greek pHra:té:r
> >Slavic *bratrU, *bratU
> >Baltic *bra:t- (Lith. brólis, Latv. brãlis represent old pet
> >Celtic *bra:ti:r (OIr. bráth(a)ir, Wel. brawd, pl. brodyr)
> >Germanic *bro:þar- (Goth. bro:þar, OE bro:þor, OHG bruodar, ON
> >Tocharian (A) pracar, (B) procer
> >Armenian eLbayr
> >
> >All of them are derived more or less straightforwardly from PIE
> >*bHráh2ter- via well-known sound changes. How do you figure out
that the
> >Sanskrit and Germanic forms are "more closely related than the
> The only objective criterion would be "smallest amount of
mutations" to get
> from the proto-form to the attested reflexes. By that criterion,
> is less "closely related" to Sanskrit than Greek or Latin. Leaving
> the exact vocalisation of the second syllable (which in any case
> on the exact case form), and disregarding the change *eh2 > *a:
which is
> shared by all the forms above, the number of changes required to
get from
> *bhrá:t..r to the forms attested are:
> Skt. 0
> Av. 1 (bh > b)
> Grk. 1 (bh > ph)
> Lat. 1 (bh > f)
> Slav. 2 (bh > b, a: > a)
> OIr. 2 (bh > b, t > th)
> Goth 3 (bh > b, a: > o:, t > þ)
> ToB 3 (bh > p, a: > o, t > c)
> Arm 5 (bh > b, br > rb, rb > l~b, l~b- > el~b-, t > y)
The sum 18. What could be the sum if we start not from Skt. If less
than 18 then what could it suggest?
> [The above is only an indication. For instance, it can be argued
that the
> Latin change involved two steps bh > ph, ph > f; or that the Slavic
> a: > a is not a change at all (merely the side-effect of another
change /a/
> > /o/); in Armenian, *bra:ti:r may have developed to el~bayr trough
> different paths, etc.]
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...

Is it theoretically incorrect to calculate the objective criterion
the "smallest amount of mutations" from other any other point? E.g.
Then to see if sum of all language family mutation is bigger or

The Sanskrit is definitely archaic but is it panaca for everything?

In Proto-Germanic may be a word
Bohrater <>bohater is the same process as in
Oder <> Odra (a river)

The mostly exchanged form of bhrather will be non- nominative
Bhradzie in east Slavic traces of h exist in bradzie bracie bradiaga
(The Slavic "brat" is not used only to family members but to close
friend or somebody they like to consider a friend, family member is
to good known by name to talk to him bhrather)

There is also parallel semantically close form (friend)
Doroze <> drOZe, dróże ,drużba, drudzia, druzia, druh, drug, dra=
Which mean somebody equal we follow with in space or time. Today also
as wedding best man.

What do you thing about <> which way > or < ?

If bohratera bohater hater hero will be considered proto-word then
what will be the possible earliest form of it, source?

Boh tyż , boh tera, boz tyż, bo tyż
Where tyż tyrz tyZ = to also
boh, boż bog = god ,the top of hierarhy

and then
boh, boho = bo +ho bicose high
bo że, bo dze = because this (his word is last to obey)

while dzy dzub teth is the natural sound for many roots sharp, power,

Perhaps this walk thru is not correct but I see that we tend to
explain one word by another and not to extend this thought to end.

Like in this example:
Where form is derived word A?
A is derived form B.

But isn't it natural to ask automatically where from is B?