From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 55395
Date: 2008-03-17
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
To: "Patrick Ryan" <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 2:00 PM
Subject: Re[4]: [tied] Latin -idus as from dH- too
> At 4:25:56 AM on Monday, March 17, 2008, Patrick Ryan wrote:
>
> > From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
>
> >> At 7:06:48 PM on Sunday, March 16, 2008, Patrick Ryan wrote:
>
> >> [...]
>
> >>> The root for 'protect (probably, closer to 'challenge
> >>> danger by advancing to the front')' is clearly *po:(H)-
> >>> not *pa:(H)-.
>
> >> [...]
>
> >>> *pa:(H)-, 'herder, leader to pasture, provider'
>
> >> What makes this clear? If there actually are two roots
> >> here, Gk. <pô:u> and <poimé:n> 'a shepherd' would seem to
> >> point the other way. Given the close semantic connections
> >> among 'protect', 'herd', and 'nourish', it seems much easier
> >> to see a single root *peh2- with o-grade *poh2-. (And in
> >> the other direction I believe that Hittite /pahs-/ 'to
> >> protect' tends to suggest *peh2-, not *peh3-.)
>
> > On P. 839 of Pokorny is listed: "1. po:(i)- . . .schützen
> > . . .
>
> > Is that clear enough for you?
>
> It's clear; it's hardly dispositive.
***
I re-assert: *po:(H)= means 'protect".
Do you actually dispute that?
***
> > A single root *peh2- with an *o-grade?
>
> > What utter twaddle!
>
> <shrug> The notion that only one root is involved is hardly
> original with me, and indeed I seem to be in pretty good
> company.
***
No, you are not.
I wonder if your "company" ever considered that *po:(H)-+causative and
*pa:(H)-+causative would, even if I accepted the process, which I do not,
_both_ lead to the same shape: *po(H)-yé.
***
>
> > So, you want to make *p&tér- the 'Fütterer' of the family?
>
> No, that's your choice of interpretation, clearly made for
> rhetorical effect and not out of scientific necessity.
>
> [...]
***
That is fuzziness at work. Füttern is one the indelibly clear meanings of
the word - the kind you obviously cannot abide.
***
> > There is no *H2 or *h3; there is only *H.
>
> The evidence is very much against you.
***
The theory has been so riddled with qualifications that it thoroughly
meaningless.
***
> > Hittite <pat> is cognate with PIE *poti, 'self'; it is
> > therefore egregiously misleading to suggest that Hittite
> > <pahs-> suggests PIE 'protect' was *pa:(H)-.
>
> Oh? My understanding is that Hittite /h/ is far more likely
> to represent *h2 than *h3, so that /ah/ suggests *ah2 rather
> than *oh3. However, I freely admit that I have *not* read
> Melchert, so I'm going only by what I've picked here and
> from Beekes.
***
There is no *H3; but even if there was, *H2 is commoner.
It is amusing that anyone would put argumentative weight on that fact.
With reconstructions in _every_ PIE-derived language, reconstructions with
*H2 will outweigh those with *H3.
Do you not know that?
***
> > What it shows is that a word for 'herder', *pa:(H)s-, was
> > loosely taken to mean 'protector' but only in the sense of
> > selfish interest.
>
> Minus the special pleading, you've just acknowledged that
> the semantics of 'protect' and 'herd' are quite close. If
> you can't see that 'feed, nourish' is also close to
> 'protect', it's not my problem.
>
> Brian
***
What special pleading? Specify it or do not call names.
Here is a little help:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/special-pleading.html
In the sense of 'protect' provided by *pa:(H)-, Stalin "protected" millions
on their way to the Gulags.
Why?
Because he wanted to keep the tracks clear.
I originated in Omaha, where giant stockyards fed animals about to be
slaughtered.
Will you sit down to "feed" tonight or to "food"?
Why did Pokorny not include 'zum Essen geben'?
And yes, I know they are apparently from the same root.
Patrick