Re: PIE 'brow'

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Sergejus Tarasovas"
<S.Tarasovas@...> wrote:

> > Why *h3kW-bHr-u- is expressed as h3 but not as h2? In Lithuanian

h3

> > mutates as -uo-, but this reconstructed h3kw- is related to akis
> > (eye) (short -a- vowel).
> > Latin acies - of the eye? Sanscrit ak-; Latvian acis, Armenian

aku

> > and etc...
>
> Lithuanian <akìs> (as well as Latvian <acs>, Old Prussian (pl.)
> <ackis>, (sg.) (corrupted) <agins>) continues Proto-Baltic *akis,
> from PIE *h3okW(-i)- (i.e. the full grade rather than the zero

grade

> *h3kW- occuring in compounds). Baltic *a is a normal reflex of PIE

*

> (h3)o, since Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian (with a reservation
> considering Brugmann's Law) have merged the reflexes of PIE *o and
> *a, so your Baltic and Old Indic examples are undecisive. I don't
> know much about Armenian and can't comment on the history of <akn>
> (for what it's worth, there's a short note in
> Beekes's "Introduction", saying that "[PIE *o yields Arm.] a in

open

> syllable under certain conditions"). PIE *oh3 (not *h3o) before a

non-

> sonorant indeed normally yields Lith. úo (not sure about *oh3

before

> a sonorant).
>
> The basic (and etymological) meaning of Latin <acie:s> (< PIE

*h2ak-

> 'sharp') is 'sharp edge/point', 'keenness of look/glance, sharpness
> of vision' -> 'pupil of the eye' -> (poet.) 'eye' being its obvious
> secondary (allegoric) meanings.
>
> > Couldn't be eye in PIE not h3kw-, but akw- (short a
> > sound, which became o in Latin and relicts of short -a- are

visible

> > only in secondary Latin forms?
>
> Obviously not.

But on the other hand - pronouncing of A is more complicated than O,
lips are more relaxed and emerges such mutation of vowel: A>O>U.
Such situation also is visible in Lithuanian: a:>o:

and in dialects: Pruss. a:-pe (river), western dialects (including
Samogitian) o:-pe and finally Lithuanian u-pe (short u) (u:pe in
East Auxtaitian).

Could you comment?

> > *h3bHruh-; bHruh- may be related to Lithuanian bru:ks^nys (line,
> > German strich), brez^ti (to line, German zeichnen, ritzen).
> > Also
> > Russian brovka (brov` - eye brush) related to Lithuanian

briauna -

> > edge.
>
> The situation with the words you mention seems to be rather

confusing.

Sorry i've brov` - eye brow in my mind, it was small mistake.

Lithuanian related stem (of brow) would be brau~- or bru:-

Also Latvian bru:ns - brown, maybe it's related to the brow? Old
English brun (related to brown) - dark, so, maybe Proto-Baltic
meaning was the same, *bru:uv-is - brown thing, -uv - the same
suffix as in liez^-uv-is (tongue)

>
> <bru:ks^ny~s> 'line' obviously belongs to the nest of
> <brau~kti> 'drag, wipe etc', <brùkti> 'thrust',

<bru:~kis> 'stroke',

> continuing (with their Latvian, Old Prussian, Slavic and a handful

of

> probable non-Balto-Slavic cognates) PIE *bHr(o)uk(^)- 'push, press
> (and drag)'.

No, this PIE stem obviously is related to Lithuanian BRUK-ti (press,
push, thrust, load), Bru:kis is derivative from Bruk-ti (to push,
load).

>
> <briaunà> 'edge' may (along with Z^em. brùne: 'eyebrow', unexpected
> (dial.) <br(i)ónyti> 'scratch' and -- according to the Leiden's

site -

> - possibly OIc. <brún> 'ege, side' and OIr. <brú> 'edge, bank')

may or

> may not be related to the *h3(-)bHruh- etymon (also reflected in

Lith.

> (dial.) <bruvìs> 'eyebrow'), to which Russ. <bróvka> 'edge'
> (Sl. *brovUka <- *bry 'eyebrow', G. *brUve) obviously belongs. We
> also have Lith. <br(i)áuti(s)> 'push, squeeze (oneself into)',
> probably continuing PIE *bHreuh- 'push, break, cut',

Bruk-ti
which looks

> like the *bHreu- underlying *bHr(o)uk(^)- but with another root
> extension (*//bHreu-h-// ~ *//bHreu-k(^)-//) and which may be

related

> to the probable second component of *h3kW-bHruh-.

I was trying to understand this your sentence above, but i was
floundered, so, which stem is related to *h3kW-bHruh-? *bHreuh-;
bHreu-h or bHreu-k(^)-????

how do you think about this (Lithuanian) akibru:z^is???
ak-i- (i think here everythink is clear), bru:z^- from bru:z^-e:^
(line, strich = bruks^nys). Couldn't be this form related to *h3kW-
bHruh-??? Or maybe there was other similar IE stem?

>
> As if the matters were not already enough complicated, Lith.
> <bré:z^ti> 'draw a line, scratch' belongs to the ablauting root

nest

> serving as a Schulebeispiel of the Lithuanian secondary ablaut
> (especially proliferating next to sonorants):
> <bré:z^ti> : <brìz^e:s> 'kind of harrow' : <bry~z^is> '?'

(Girdenis's

> example, but I don't know the word)

I know this word, it's well known, it's strange that you dont know
it `,:-| ???

, <brúoz^as> 'line, stroke;

> trait', <braiz^ýti> 'draw', <bráiz^yti> 'scratch',
> <bru:~z^inti> 'rub',

<brau~z^ti> '?' etc. Pokorny mentions <bré:z^ti>

Brauz^ti probably from dialect, i hear this first time, but it could
be related to bruz^e:^

bre:^z^ti is well known too.

> under lemma *bre:i- (*bHrehi-?) 'cut (to pieces etc)', but it can
> equally well continue PIE *bHreg^- 'break' or already mentioned
> *bHreuh- 'push, break, cut'. The probability of the late

(influenced

> by secondary ablaut patterns) contamination of etymologically
> different roots is also can't be excluded.

bre:^z^ti, bra:iz^yti (draw, scratch, trace) are from the same root
(semantically)

brau~kti, bru~z^inti, bru:ks^nys, bruz^e:^ (push, wipe, scratch,
rub) are from second root. It's also related to brukti (thrust,
push, load, scutch) (semantically too). (!!!!!)So, most likely these
stems are related to PIE brow second part (if we have in mind
akibru:ks^nis)

>
> At last, for all these words a common root etymology (*bHer- 'cut')
> can be suggested.

No, as i wrote above these words have just similar meanings, but
Proto-Baltic -au; -u: couldn't be conected with -ei; e: (e:^); y; i.