Re: [tied] Re: PIE 'brow'

> From: whetex_lewx [mailto:whetex_lewx@...]

> (Latv., nom) ma:te, Lith. mo:te:^ (e:^ also is always long vowel).

On this forum, we use <e:> for your <e:^>, <o> for your <o:>, <aN> ("a
nosine:"), <ã> ("tvirtaprade: a") for your <a:>, <eN>, <e~> for your <e:>.
Also pitch accents ("priegaides") are marked consistently (eg, ã, e~, ý, é:,
eñ; ^ marks Z^emaitian/Latvian broken tone). You'll be better understood if
you adopt this notation.

> I think upe:^ Nemunas isn't very roaring :)

Tell that to Kazimieras Bu:ga.

> 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?

I give up. Never mind.

> 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`)

Just for the record, what "group" is uo (brúoz^as)? And o, a, e?

You must have ignored what I wrote on the Lithuanian secondary ablaut. I
provided some examples, but you didn't comment on them. Do you really mean
that, eg., pléis^e:ti 'crack, burst (iter.)', plé:s^ti 'tear' are only
semantically related to plúos^tas 'tuft; fiber', plaus^ai~/plu:s^ai~ 'bast,
fiber', plu:s^ýti 'tear (intrans.)' ? And glau~bti 'cuddle' is only
semantically related to glé:bti 'embrace'? And sre:~bti 'sup' to sriubà
'soup'? And if you do, do you still accept that gìrtas 'drunk', gerkle:~
'throat' and gurkly~s 'craw' belong to the same root nest? I wonder because
that (i~u) is one of the models inspirating some secondary ablaut patterns.

> 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`)

Where else in Lithuanian we find that br- ~ r- alternation?

> > 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...?

I don't know. I don't think -gz^-'s of these words share a common origin, at
any rate. Some -g-'s can be (East) Baltic epenthetic velars.

> Yes, liez^uvis is an old derivative from Laiz^yti (lick, taste),

No. It's Proto-Baltic *(d)inz'u:- (< PIE *dng^H-uh-) *contaminated
with/influenced by* the lick-word. The stem ends in -u:, so it's an
*u:-stem. Later, when Lithuanian began to get rid of *u:-stems, -is was
added in the nominative causing *u: to dissolve into *-uw- > -uv-. Exactly
like (dial.) bruvìs 'eyebrow' < *bru:- < *h3bruh-.

> 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.

No. The v of these nouns is not a suffix -- it's the last vowel of the stem
of the verbs they are derived from. *gréu- > *grjáu-te:i> *grjã:u-á: >
*grjã:w-á: > griov-à.

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

No. I meant it possibly has *cognates* in non-Balto-Slavic languages.

> Brukti ~ Brau~kti, so first was -au~, which was shorted to -u,
> because in au~ u has circumflex.

It wasn't "shortened". It's a nil grade.

> > 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? :)

So there's no such word (+akibru:z^is) in your Lithuanian? What did you mean
by mentioning it then? That such a word is in principle possible and if it
existed it would provide a clue to the etymology of PIE *h3bruh-?

> No, you just look at "brauz^ti related to bruz^e:^", stem brau:k-,
> i've wrote about this above.

How come? The stem of brau~z^ti is //brauk-//? I see no k in brau~z^ti -- I
observe z^ instead.

Sergei