Re: bhratr

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, 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.

frater,

> >> lat.frater, germ. brodar, I realized that the germanic word is

more

> >> closely related to sanskrit than the others. Have you any

thoughts on this?

> >
> >The actual cognates of Skt. bHra:tar- (nom.sg. bHrá:ta:) include

the

> >following:
> >
> >Avestan bra:ta:
> >Latin fra:ter
> >Greek pHra:té:r
> >Slavic *bratrU, *bratU
> >Baltic *bra:t- (Lith. brólis, Latv. brãlis represent old pet

forms)

> >Celtic *bra:ti:r (OIr. bráth(a)ir, Wel. brawd, pl. brodyr)
> >Germanic *bro:þar- (Goth. bro:þar, OE bro:þor, OHG bruodar, ON

bróðir)

> >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

others"?

>
> The only objective criterion would be "smallest amount of

mutations" to get

> from the proto-form to the attested reflexes. By that criterion,

Germanic

> is less "closely related" to Sanskrit than Greek or Latin. Leaving

aside

> the exact vocalisation of the second syllable (which in any case

depended

> 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

change

> 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.
Proto-Germanic?
Then to see if sum of all language family mutation is bigger or
smaller?

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

In Proto-Germanic may be a word
Bhrother
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=
g
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,
reason.


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.
Ok.

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


John