From: Arnaud Fournet
Message: 60303
Date: 2008-09-25
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
To: "Arnaud Fournet" <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
>>>> Proto-IE: *kad-
>>>> Meaning: to injure, to harm
>>>> Old Indian: kadana- n.`destruction, killing, slaughter';
>>>> cakada kadanam `to kill or hurt'
>> I consider it absurd to erase the meaning "to kill"
>> 1. by assuming that a cadaver is "fallen" instead of "killed"
>> 2. by assuming that "to kill" means "beschädigen",
>
>> these words are obviously related
>> and Pokorny is wrong to tear this relationship apart.
>
===============
> Pokorny isn't the only one: you'll find that Watkins also
> assigns <cadaver> and related Latin words to *k^ad-. And
> for good reason: it goes with <cadere> 'to fall; to die'.
> The verb has an obvious cognate in OInd. <s'ad-> 'abfallen,
> ausfallen', which points to *k^-, not *k-, and the cognates
> in general clearly show that 'fall' is the primary sense,
> 'die' being secondary.
>
> Brian
==============
In case you are not aware of that,
the mere restatement of the standard point of view will not convince me.
I disagree that there is a primary sense and secondary sense,
this story about primary and secondary is not an argument in favor of
orthodoxy,
but a consequence of the orthodoxy.
I'm saying that there are two meanings : to die and to fall.
Both primary.
Arnaud