Re: [tied] Re: bhratr

07-10-03 19:31, johnshocky wrote:

> 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?

I've passed this message for the sake of the above question, which
deserves an honest answer. It's really about the "rooting" of the family
tree, i.e. about deciding whether a given branch proto-language (e.g.
Proto-Germanic) derives from PIE rather than the other way out.
Fortunately, language changes are clearly directional, which means that
you can't reverse them at will. For example, there are numerous
morphological losses/simplifications and few additions/complications in
the passage from PIE to PGmc. In the domain of phonology, there are some
conditioned changes in which the conditioning factor (e.g. free stress)
is present in reconstructed PIE but absent from PGmc. This again
indicates the direction of change. So do phonemic mergers (e.g. *a, *o >
*a), and deletions, which are generally more common than unconditioned
splits or unmotivated insertions (and you'd require lots of them to move
from PGmc. to PIE).

The number of changes needed to derive A from B is not very important,
especially because the rate of change is historically variable. It's
more important to know what kinds of change are one-way streets.

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

Who says that Sanskrit is a "panacea"? Do you mean that the PIE
reconstruction is too heavily dependent on Sanskrit? It would have been
true before the 1870s, but I'd say that the testimony of other branches
is fully appreciated nowadays. Even on this list Albanian, Baltic,
Slavic, Armenian, Celtic, Tocharian, Germanic, etc., get as much
attention as the "classical" IE languages such as Greek, Sanskrit or Latin.

I'll refrain from responding to the rest of your posting, which consists
of silly logorrhoeic babble in Polish and English. I recognise the
unmistakable style of "slawomirmiroslawski", and I have no doubt that
you're the same individual under a new alias. Please don't send any more
such stuff. I simply won't let it get through.

Piotr

> 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