Re: PIE 'brow'

> > But on the other hand - pronouncing of A is more complicated

than

> O,
>
> *Less* complicated, you mean?

No, (i don't say that my opinion is right, but i want to know)
but when a is pronouncing, mouth is opened broad, and lips are in
strained form. When o is pronouncing, upper lip is relaxed and lower
muscle of low lip is relaxed too, so a becomes o. U is additionally
relaxed o. So, am i righ? If you prove "not", i'll give up ;)

>
> > lips are more relaxed and emerges such mutation of vowel: A>O>U.
> > Such situation also is visible in Lithuanian: a:>o:
>
> Before we go on: what does your ":" mean? It usually marks length
> (vs. brevity), but seems to have more meanings in your messages.

Yes, i mark long vowel with ":". In Lith. a:>o: i mean about changes
is genitive, and stems (comparing with Latvian and Auxtaitian
dialects): (nom.) kalnas (hill, mount), (gen.) kalna: --> kalno: in
modern Lith. O is always long in Lith., as you know, but i mark it
with ":" because users of forum may don't know about this,
(Latv., nom) ma:te, Lith. mo:te:^ (e:^ also is always long vowel).

>
> > 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?
>
> Well, what exactly I'm expected to comment on? Most Lithuanian
> dialects have raised long *a: to o: (most Z^emaitian dialects --

to

> uo except in unstressed endings, where we find -a). That's right.

Old

> Prussian <ape> is a normal reflex of PIE *h2ap- 'water', while

East

> Baltic *upe: is aberrant and to my knowledge hasn't been
> satisfactorily explained (contamination with East Baltic reflexes

of

> PIE *wo(:)p- ~ *up- 'pond' or East Baltic *up- 'shout, roar' (of a
> rapid river)?). That's well known as well. Most Z^emaitian

dialects

> *lowered* *u to [o(.)] -- every *u, not only that of *upe:. This

is

> commonly known as well. Now I fail to see how all that is related

to

> your point on PIE +akW- 'eye'?

I think upe:^ Nemunas isn't very roaring :), upe is related only to
*h2ap-, hmmm, eh, let's leave up- for next time.

About eye, i wrote above, so, let's break heads :)

>
> > > 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.
>
> No, not that -- I meant the words you mention (most of the words,

not

> only Russ. brov') are not so easy to etymologize.

Ok, i found bit of my letter:

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.

brovka and brov` are russian, bru:s^nys and bre:^zti Lithuanian (but
bre:^zti falls, because it hasn't conections with bruks^- (which is
from braukti). These in brackets are English and German meanings
(don't look at it). Was you talking about these Lithuanian? If yes,
look: braukti, bruks^nys, bru:z^e are one group (au<>u<>u:), these
also are semantically related to brukti (to thrust, to push, to
swingle)

bre:^z^ti, braiz^yti, br^yz^is is other group (to draw, to scratch,
to trace, to plough (as you wrote)), also it's related to re:^z^ti
(RUSSIAN RiEZAT`), so what can you say about that b in PIE? Maybe it
was just suffixe (coalesced with stem in PIE) and stem related to
Proto-Baltic B-RE:I-(G)Z(^)-????

> > Lithuanian related stem (of brow) would be brau~- or bru:-
>
> Well, I stated essentially the same, if only additionally

mentioned

> the words with probable stem-extensions (-z^- <*-g(H)^- and -k- <

*-k
Like in Z^vai-gz^-de, kre-gz^-de:^, la-gz-da (Latv.) and etc...?

> (^)-) and other versions of secondary-ablauting vowels (see below).
>
> > 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)
>
> liez^ùvis is an old (Baltic) *u:-stem (<PIE *-uH-), converted (as
> usually) to an *i-stem -- *u: dissotiates to *uw (>uv) before a

vowel
Yes, liez^uvis is an old derivative from Laiz^yti (lick, taste),
related to latin Lingua (language, tongue), but there aren't u-stem
in Laiz^yti (from Laiz^inti). There is also Laiz^auti and laiz^iauti
(remember pad-laiz^iauti), here is u stem, you are right about that,
there formed new suffix in Lithuanian -uv, and this suffix is
continue of other suffix -au. -au marks a lot of short actions,
look at the differences between meanings of laiz^yti, laiz^auti,
lyz^telti and lyz^t (it's the same as pow, booooow, crash, ping
pong).

Such suffixes are usable for "making" nouns, and *bru:vis/brau:vis
(brown thing is right), as grio-v-a (from gria:-v-a <-- griauti),
dz^io-v-a.

P.S. there is also Laiz^auti and laiz^iauti, here is u stem

> (the same thing in Sl. *brUv- < *bru:- in oblique cases). But are
> eyebrows mostly brown?

Mostly DARK (in Old English brun - dark) ;)

>
> > > <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).

> Look, you've just repeated what I wrote (if I get you right). So
> why 'no'?

Forgive me, i was wery tired yesterday...

But why non-Balto-Slavic??? You say Bruk-ti is loan-word?

> > 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(^)-????
>
> As I've warned you, the situation is confusing. In short, all the
> stems or neither of them *may* be related. I (we?) simply don't

know.

I guess WE :)

Brukti ~ Brau~kti, so first was -au~, which was shorted to -u,
because in au~ u has circumflex. Proto-baltic stem may be *brau:k-
or *breu:k-.

*h3kW-bHruh-? *bHreuh-;

> > bHreu-h or bHreu-k(^)- are these right? Shouldn't bHruh- be

bHreuh-??? Slavic brov'= Baltic brau~

> > 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-

no, *h3kW- is related to eye, but i was talking about second part of
stem which i reconstructed in Proto-Baltic as *brau:k-/*breu:k-
(push, wipe, ...). Brau:k- ---> bruz^e:^ (line) above the eye.

Also brau:(-v)-is (dark think above the eye).

> > bHruh-??? Or maybe there was other similar IE stem?
>
> I'm afraid to surprise you one more time, but I don't know the

word

> as well. Is it a by-version of akìbroks^tas?

No, eye-line, eye-strisch, aki-bru:ks^nis, do you know word
bru:ks^nys? :)

>
> > <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 `,:-| ???
>
> Now I've found the word in Fraenkel ('line, stripe'). You seem to

be

> aware of the meaning 'notch' as well. Well, I've no dialectal
> background at all (third generation in Vilnius on the Lithuanian
> part).

Well, you're not native speaker, i don't know all trifles in
Russian, so I understand you :)
Sometimes i read books where are many Lithuanian words which i don't
know and haven't heard, so i need vocabularies to understand my
native language :(.

>
> > Brauz^ti probably from dialect, i hear this first time, but it
> could
> > be related to bruz^e:^
>
> What do you mean by 'but'? Related, so such and such of what I

wrote

> is wrong?

No, you just look at "brauz^ti related to bruz^e:^", stem brau:k-,
i've wrote about this above. That "but" should be and, i was rushing
and made mistake.

> Well, I'm ready to agree, but could you explain the exact meaning

of

> your "^" in that context? Circumflex pitch accent ("tvirtagale:
> priegaide:") or what?

e:^ is such vowel which is simillar with e:, but influented of i
(smth. like that)

egl-e:^ (fir, Christmas-tree, yolka), got my mind?

>
> > 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). (!!!!!)
> ...
> > 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.

>
> You misunderstood me twice.
>
> First and foremost, the borders of the Schleicher's Lithuanian
> apophonic series (that is, a(e), i(ie) and u(au)) are not
> unsurmountable barriers on the path of the Balto-Slavic

*secondary*

> (innovative, not inherited from the PIE one) ablaut. In a

nutshell,

> it's analogy that it's mostly based on: if, say, e:~uo is

inherited

> (< PIE *e: ~ o: or *eh1 ~ *oh1), as well as uo~au (under certain
> conditions, as in daubà 'ravine' ~ duobe:~ 'pit' < *o: ~ *au < *au

in

> different prosodical contexts < *ou/h2eu), then let's coin new

words

> with e: ~ au; if aR ~ iR ~ uR is inherited (*oR ~ *R.), then let's
> produce brand new o ~ i ~ u (resp., eg., uo ~ ei ~ au etc.) in any
> context and so on. The bré:z^ti nest is a well known example of

the

> secondary ablaut walking through all the three series (at least
> synchronically -- your "semantically"), but crossings of series
> borders are not confined to that root: cf. smo~gti 'to strike' ~
> smu:~gis 'a strike', s^ókti 'jump' ~ s^úokoti 'jump (iter.)' ~
> s^úksnis 'a jump', sre:~bti 'sup' ~ sriubà 'soup', re:~kti 'to

shout'

> ~ rìksmas 'a shout', sver~ti 'weigh' ~ svýroti 'hang down (over)',
> dúoti 'give' ~ dosnùs 'generous', brastà 'a ford' ~ braidýti 'to
> ford', ka~la 'forges' ~ kú:le: 'thrashed', plýs^ti 'crack, burst'

~

> pléis^e:ti 'crack, burst (iter.)' ~ plé:s^ti 'tear' ~
> plúos^tas 'tuft; fiber' (< 'torn out') ~ plaus^ai~ 'bast, fiber'
> (another well known example of a "thorough" secondary ablaut).
>
> In the second place, by root etymology I meant the *PIE* root
> etymology (*bHer- ~ *bHr-, probably underlying *bHr-eu(-C)-, *bHr-

ei(-

> C)- etc), not the Baltic one.
>
> > So, most likely these
> > stems are related to PIE brow second part (if we have in mind
> > akibru:ks^nis)
>
> I wouldn't exclude that, but I'd like to hear from other members

on

> the list.

Maybe, brau:k-; -k is unexpected, so from my hypothesis there is
left only brau:-is - dark (brown) thing above the eye.

>

Vytautas