Re: [tied] West bird

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
wrote:

>
> On 2006-01-30 12:35, tgpedersen wrote:
>
> > With much mental effort I think I discovered what you mean here:
> > Since *ni-sed- has a proven connection with the PIE root *sed-
> > "sit",
>
> So far, so good.
>
> > it can't be connected with my "speculative interpretation",
> > ie. a derivation from OC s^e´l "west; roost, perch". But what I
> > claim is that PIE *sed- _is_ OC *s^e´l, namely a loan. In other
> > words, the two are identical. Now when you try to disprove my

claim

> > of the identity of the two, you use implicitly a claim that PIE

*sed-

> > is _different_ from OC *s^e´l. But you haven't proved that.
>
> I haven't even attempted to disprove this OC connection, though I

can

> hardly imagine how such a loan (how old?) could have become so

tightly

> integrated with the IE grammatical system as to develop the

attested,

> very much native-looking, pattern of related paradigms, including

e.g.

> the ubiquitous reduplicated present *si-sd-e/o-, likely traces of

Narten

> forms, and other stuff datable to PIE rather than more recent

stages,

> and showing *sed- to be an old primary verb.

So it would be a loan into pre-PIE.

>Of course a loan from OC to
> _PIE_ can be ruled out for chronological reasons (as opposed to,

say, a

> loan from some eastern IE dialect into OC),

Please elucidate.

>and a shared loan from some
> essentially unidentifiable eastern source, for want of tangible
> evidence, is not something that can be profitably discussed.

If tangible evidence is what you want, perhaps you're not in the
right line of business? ;-)

> As for connecting the "west" word with the above, are there any

reflexes

> of your hypothetical *we-sd- outside Germanic? If we analyse *west

(ero)-

> together with the other cardinal direction terms, the first thing

that

> suggests itself is the division *wes-tero- parallel to the other

three.

But the suffix(es) is/are *-(t)er-o-. You might as well demand for
there to be a /t/ in Lat. levir.

> This, however, can well be an analogical deformation of older

*wesp-ero-

> < *we-kWsp-ero- (cf. Skt. ks.ap- 'night'), through which we can

explain

> <west>, <vesper> and <vec^er> at one time.
>

That would be nice, but it constitues no proof.


Torsten