(was: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family)
I have a legitimate question about how and why I.E. linguists determine a term to be considered strictly Indo-European.
An example would be the following:
Linguists believe PIE had two root words for water: *ap-and *wed-.
"water (n.1) O.E. wæter, from P.Gmc. *watar (cf. O.S. watar, O.Fris. wetir, Du. water, O.H.G. wazzar, Ger. Wasser, O.N. vatn, Goth. wato"water"), from PIE*wodor/*wedor/*uder-, from root *wed- (cf. Hittite watar, Skt. udrah, Gk. hydor, O.C.S., Rus. voda, Lith.vanduo, O.Prus. wundan, Gael. uisge "water;" L. unda "wave")."
Both terms (*ap-and *wed-.) are offered as being part of the basic Indo-European vocabulary. Often, these terms are offered as the core of their "show case" Indo-European examples. The current post you are discussing exemplifying this clearly and decisivly.
This assertion, often taken for granted, is now being challenged by the presence of similar terms for water in Arabic, a non-Indo-European language (these terms are `dr, `dd, and `bb which correspond to PIE *ap-and *wed-. This points to a problem which needs to be addressed when dealing with isoglosses which cut across family languages.
To my knowledge these terms are only found in Arabic and are non-existent in other sister languages. I was often asked whether or not there are any other examples in Semitic languages? My answer is: should it it matter, especially in the light of the extensive and comprehensive definitions found in Old Arabic and Classical Arabic?
For complete definitions and translation from Classical Arabic sources click below:
http://www.theegyptianchronicles.com/LINKS/3DR.html
Linguists who brush these off as loan words, need to explain how a non-Indo European language can borrow so complete the whole etymological package (from A to Z). Actually these definitions are so overwhelmingly detailed as to pose enough of a challenge (in this particular case), to all combined Indo European examples offered so far. It is my belief that there is something amiss here that has never been addressed.
I've never heard any I.E. Linguists officially discussing this anomaly. Based on this omission, this issue seems to plead linguists for an unbiased explanation.
A byproduct of this issue is a question to all linguists: What really makes a term strictly part of the I.E isogloss? Do they really bother to scan any isogloss for any non I.E. examples, just to make sure that it is a solid I.E. term before delving into spectacular hypotheses.
Below are the Arabic terms which are part of this isogloss, they were and still are hitherto overlooked by Linguists.
These are ( `dr, `dd, and `bb) : "water, plenty of water, torrential rain, rain, drenched in rain, getting wet from rain, abundance of rain, an uninterrupted source of water from a spring or a well, river overflowing with water, water in its purest form, used as a toponymy for the valley of 'water' in a region in Arabia, the peculiar sound of a bucket (or any solid object) when falling in water, in the depth of well, saturated with water, imbibe,drinking water."
Ps. (`) is the Arabic letter `ayn.
??? (???? ?????)
???????? ?????????: ????? ??????.
????? ??????????: ?????? ???? ???. ?? ???: ?????????? ??????? ??? ??????????? ??????: ???????????
????????: ?????????? ??????? ???????? ????????
?????????? ???????: ???????? ?? ????????
??????????: ????? ??????
Thank you in advance for your opinion.
Ishinan
[HTML deleted. -BMS]