From: Patrick Ryan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Grzegorz Jagodzinski" <grzegorj2000@...>
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2005 7:41 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] PIE word for "people"
> Patrick Ryan wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Joao S. Lopes" <josimo70@...>
> > To: "Cybalist" <email@example.com>
> > Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2005 8:29 AM
> > Subject: [tied] PIE word for "people"
> >> Is there any PIE word meaning "people"? Is there any relationship
> >> between such word and another non-IE equivalents, meanly in
> >> Kartvelian, Afro-Asiatic, Elamo-Dravidic? Was there any attempt to
> >> reconstruct a Nostratic word for "people"?
> >> Joao SL
> > ***
> > Patrick:
> > Yes, I believe so.
> > For PIE, we would reconstruct *ro:m-, seen in Latin Ro:ma: and Gypsy
> > rom, 'man'; Old Indian ra:ma-, 'name of people'
> Extremally doubtful, I would even say that it is a vulgar etymology.
Learn how to spell then we will consider all claims of vulgarity, including
whether you are displaying _extremally_(sic!) vulgar rudeness.
> 1) Ro:ma: is probably an Etruscan word, so not IE-an, and thus cannot be
> compared with any Indic word. Etruscan ruma meant as if "ford, wading
> or "bridge", cf. remzna "Pontius" - see Rick Mc Callister's Etruscan
> Glossary (http://etruscans1.tripod.com/Language/EtruscanR.html).
Who says Ro:ma: is Etruscan? You? Who cares?
So, the name of Rome comes from an Etruscan word meaning 'ford'? Was there a
ford across the Tiber at the site of Rome. No! What a pitifully silly
etymology. Oh, named for a bridge. Same word for 'bridge' and 'ford'???? No
other bridges across the Tiber so that is 'the' bridge? Be real.
What is the source of that etymology? Why, Rick McCallister, of course? Who
is Rick McCallister? Why, nobody, of course.
Where does RMCC get Etruscan ruma in the first place? Do you know? It does
not appear in Etruscan Glossaries that are reliable.
I think old RMCC just made it up for people like you.
What people do you know that calls its by a name bestowed upon them by
foreigners. Do you have any examples? Even a measly one example?
> 2) Are there towns or villages called just "people"? I am just curious
> because it seems highly improbable. Instead, the etymology "bridge" or
> "ford" for a town upon a river sounds reliable.
It is common all over the world for tribal names to be simply '(hu)men' in
the language of the designators. If you do not know that already, you should
excuse yourself from the discussion, and do some serious reading. "Bridge"
or "ford" as a tribal name sounds idiotic to me.
> 3) Gypsy rom < Sanskrit d.omba- 'a man of a lower caste, musician'. This
> word is not IE and has not any r's.
Yes, that is the etymology offered by people who believe the Gypsies are
lower than dirt. Is that your opinion also?
> 4) I have not found **ra:ma- 'name of people' - if anybody has found,
> cite the source. All I have been able to find is ra:ma- 'dark, black,
> pleasant, beautiful', also 'kind of deer' and nomen proprium Ra:ma
Obviously, Sante Fe has crummy Sanskrit resources.
Try Sanskrit-English Dictionary, Sir Monier Monier-Williams, p. 877: "pl. N.
of a people". Unlike your resource RMCC, I do not make up what a need for an
> > It is also in Egyptian rmT, 'men, mankind';
> I have found the following for 'people, men':
> rXy.t (X = h with arch)
> And rmT = 'man', not 'mankind'
Apparently, you cannot get hold of a decent Egyptian dictionary either.
Even the cheapest one, A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian, Raymond O.
Faulkner, p. 149: "rmT, man, pl. men, mankind....Egyptians".
> > Burushaski rôm, 'clan, tribe, community'.
Hmmm? You do not question the Burushaski? I will bet I know why.
> > ***
> Personally I do not think that a word meaning "mankind" existed in
> or even earlier. Instead of those improbable stories with Romans = people
> would suggest something different. Just take a look at this:
When your scholarship is so shoddy, who could possibly care what you think?
As for your own website, it is trite and jejune. Nothing that has not been
said a thousand times, and said a hundred times better. A complete waste of
Go back whence you came and where you did not learn English, and add better
manners to your course of study.
> IE *man-, Uralic *män'c'e, Dravid. *man.-s-, Proto-North-Cauc. *mV:n-xV,
> Chinese *n@:m, Afro-Asiatic *man ---- all with the meaning 'man' (Egyptian
> mnyw 'shepherd')
> IE *gWen-, Altaic *kune ~ *gune, North Cauc. *qwa?nV, Burush. Gen- (G =
> gamma) ----- all with the meaning 'woman', sometimes 'queen' (+ AA *kVn-
> 'co-wife', 'sister-in-law')
> Much more probable than **ro:m-...
You really need a good library. There is, of course, PIE *monu-, 'man',
which correlates with all these except mnyw. Why in God's name would anyone
think that a 'shepherd' was 'the man'? You need a course in
Fingerspitzengefühl also to complement the "IMPLAUSIBLE SEMANTICS 101" that
you obviously have taken. The proper Egyptian word to compare here is mn,
And then you tell us a word for 'woman' is "much more probable"? Frankly,
you simply do not have the intelligence to participate productively on this
> Grzegorz J.