Re: Ur- = water and Skur- = shower

From: fournet.arnaud
Message: 50275
Date: 2007-10-12

----- Original Message -----
From: C. Darwin Goranson
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 8:04 PM
Subject: [Courrier indésirable] [tied] Re: Ur- = water and Skur- = shower

--- In cybalist@..., "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@ ...>
> No, basque ur "water" is absolutely not cognate with
> > IE.
> >
> > Michel
> ============ ========= =
> Basque -r- is definitely from -t?-
> which is PIE equivalent to *d.
> these words are cognates.
> ============ =======

Actually, it's probable Michael is right.



You are free to consider who and who is right.

So am I.


I consider that Basque ur "water" is definitely cognate to PIE *w_d < *ut?

And Basque hor-tz "tooth" cognate to PIE H1_d "tooth" < H_t?

And Basque haritz "oak" cognate to Gaulish cassanos < PIE *k_d-s°nos "oak" and Greek "ked-ros" < k_t?

And so on.


You failed to provide any shadow of an argument or data

that might suggest I am wrong to think these words are cognate.

"""Actually""", it is obvious I am right and you have nothing in your pockets,

but shallow certainties. Are you a colleague to Mr. Ryan ?

If you have any substantiated counter-arguments, put them on the table.



You see, Fournet,




This is my family name, I happened to have a Latin Patronym,

Even though 99% of my ancestors are either Norse, Frankish or Gaulish.


the two
words we're dealing with, Basque "ur" and PIE *wodr , have a major
barrier in being able make a comaprison: the Basque word is only two
phonological segments long. This makes it easy to compare it with a
LOT of different roots, since it's not hard to manipulate.



What about the other words ?

How many words do you need ?

Let's put it simple : I believe Historical Linguistics is a course on the inexistence of random as a possible explanation.

And your reconstruction of PIE "water" *wotr is superficial, to remain polite.

I would rate this *wotr as shamelessly ridiculous.

Maybe infantile is the most charitable word.

How long have you been trying to be a Comparatist in PIE field ?


This kind of false relation is common cross-linguisticall y, and is a
dangerous pitfall in linguistic reconstructions.



I know what I am doing.

I do not need that kind of dumb restatements of obvious advice.


Why am I so sure of the Basque word not being borrowed?



Right, not borrowed.

At last, a useful positive statement.


Basque is a conservative language, enough so that the word for "hammer" still has the root for "stone" inside it - a Palaeolithic/ Mesolithic/ Neolithic



I NEVER wrote or suggested Basque was not conservative.

and I NEVER wrote or suggested Basque ur is a loanword.

Basque ur "water" is cognate, not borrowed.

I thought my point of view was obvious : To be more explicit : COGNATE.

You mention a word for "hammer" but you did not give it.

So you are kindly (but firmly) requested to.


 Moreover - and as a point, more solid - words for basic
concepts are the least likely to change. Water, i.e. H2O, exists in
every culture of the world.



Yes. I agree. Water looks more solid than your brain.


And "least likely" is nothing but "I want it to be true" B.S. propaganda.


The words for it may differ, but there is
always a word that means "water". Why would a language that's still
very much alive borrow a word for such a basic concept ?

I admit that Basque has borrowed many words from IE languages, but it
seems unlikely that it would borrow a word so basic as "water". If you
think otherwise, please explain this: where's the impetus for
borrowing this word in particular?



See the preceding paragraph.


Generally speaking, I do not believe there is any reason why any word should not be borrowed. I do not believe in the "stable basic vocabulary" B.S.