Re: Kuhn's ar-/ur-language

--- On Mon, 2/9/09, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

> From: tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...>
> Subject: [tied] Re: Kuhn's ar-/ur-language
> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Monday, February 9, 2009, 3:50 PM
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Arnaud Fournet"
> <fournet.arnaud@...>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > > =========
> > > > What's the connection of Spanish (?)
> vega with Lit vaga ?
> > >
> > > Do you find it historically preposterous and
> semantically
> > > doubtful? ;-)
> > >
> > > =======
> > > Indeed,
> > > Not to speak about phonetic problems comparing
> *vaica with *vaga.
> > > A.
> > > =======
> >
> > *vaica??
> >
> > Si
> > Es la reconstruccion de la Real Academia Espanyola.
> > voz prerromana : *vaica
> > A.
> > =========
>
> If you don't back that up with the premises, I'll
> ignore it.
> I can't read everything.

. . .
In this case, you've put aggressive ignorance over any interest in methodology. If you don't check out the history of *vayka/*bayka, then you have no right to blindly compare it to anything else.
So look at Trask
It's usually compared to Basque ibaiko "meadow, vel. sim" and ibar- "valley, vel sim."
Note also ibai "river"
see barru "interior"
Trask once mentioned in an e-mail that baso "woods, wild" may somehow to bound up in all this
so perhaps the true root is something close to **ba-