This exchange has run aground because of Patrick's stubborn refusal to address any sort of criticism by presenting and discussing counterevidence. As anyone can see, his eristic strategy is to stipulate something in an arbitrary fashion (that is, without bothering to provide solid substantiation for his claim) and then to repeat the original assertion ad nauseam whatever the opponents says, punctuating the repetitions with slights and such pearls of rhetoric as "ridiculous" or "utter nonsense".
 
 
Example 1:
 
[The question was: what IE forms require *g^en- but rule out *g^enh1-?]
Pat: Old Indian jánati for one. Need more? Greek geneté:, 'birth'.
Me: Neither of these rules out *g^enh1-e-.
Pat: Wrong. Both do.
Now, what on earth can I say to that?
 
 
Example 2:
 
[I pointed out that Patrick had misinterpreted the semantic derivation of Czech zrák; I also explained the origin of related Slavic forms and their meaning. It wasn't _all_ the evidence available to me, but I did remark there were further Baltic and Germanic cognates that did not support Patrick's interpretation. Had the argument developed in a civilised manner, I would have had a chance to play the rest of my hand, but...]
 
Pat: And why should I take your word when I have my own?
Me: Well, at least I've offered some concrete evidence, not just my humble opinion or speculative guesses.
Pat: Sorry. You have offered nothing in the way of evidence --- just an opinion.
 
The semantic nuances of "begetting" and the question whether one can ejaculate sperm without causing impregnation I will leave at that. In the intellectual domain, it is only too clear that some minds emit thoughts that have no fertilising effect.
 
Piotr
 
 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: proto-language
To: nostratic@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 5:10 AM
Subject: Re: [nostratic] AA-IE

 
----- Original Message -----
From: Piotr Gasiorowski
To: nostratic@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2001 8:36 PM
Subject: Re: [nostratic] AA-IE

 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 2:10 AM
Subject: Re: [nostratic] AA-IE
 
> The main meaning of *g^en- is 'introduce semen into the vagina'.
 
In what language?
[PCR]
In IE. What did you think?
 
> IE *seH- means 'emitted'.
 
That's right. Various kinds of emission, including the discharge of semen (*seh1-mn). But the meaning 'sow' is also of PIE date.
[PCR]
Is it possible to have an emission outside the vagina? Or an emission that does not result in a fertilized ovum?
 
>> [*g^enh1-] does _not_ refer to fornication, insemination, etc., and if you think it does, please show your evidence rather than declare me dead wrong ex cathedra, as it were.
 
> Greek gennáo:, 'I beget'.
 
It means 'produce from oneself, engender', but can be used of either parent.
 
[PCR]
You said above "it does not refer to . . . insemination". You are clearly wrong! 'To beget' is 'to inseminate'.
 
 
 
Actually, it is a denominal verb, from <genna:> 'birth, origin', hence its rather general meaning.
[PCR]
Utter nonsense.
 
It is a verb, *g^en-, (CVC, you know), to which extensions like -*H have been added, which, in this case, represents Nostratic -*?, forming a stative.
 
One of the extensions is nominal, *-s, and conveys 'state resulting from insemination'.
 
>>> And I believe there are forms in IE languages which require *g^en-.
 
>> You mean, forms which require *g^en- but rule out *g^enh1-? Which particular forms?
 
> Old Indian jánati for one. Need more? Greek geneté:, 'birth'.
 
Neither of these rules out *g^enh1-e-.
[PCR]
Wrong. Both do.
 
>> Well, I'm not a trained Sumerologist (neither are you, I presume), so I'm inclined to respect the interpretation offered as standard by those who know better.
 
> And who would that be?
 
Thomsen, Hayes -- in fact, any professional Sumerologist.
 
 
[PCR]
Thomsen defines tud as 'to bear, to fashion' on pg. 320 of her grammar. Sorry for you but no 'to beget'.
 
>> Well, to be frank, I don't see any solid evidence for EITHER *g^er- OR *ger- meaning 'twist, turn, plait' or the like.
 
> How about OHG kratto, 'basket'?
 
By solid evidence I mean several relatable forms from different branches, plus an account of their derivation from the IE protoform. Note that Latin cra:tis 'wickerwork, hurdle' and related terms have been borrowed throughout Europe (hence English crate, for example). That word is cognate to English hurdle, but not to *g^er- or the like.
 
[PCR]
If you want to describe every other word as borrowed, I will not bother to discuss it.
 
>> What's ridiculous -- the phonaesthetic value of [skr-]?
 
> Yes.
English scrabble, scrape, scratch, Latin scri:bo:, scru:peus, Russian skrez^etat', skripet', etc. are NOT iconic? If you insist they aren't, I can only sigh.
 
[PCR]
Then sigh.
 
 
>>> I think the idea is rather 'become visible by being scraped'.
 
>> So we have your word for it, but where's the evidence? Have you really examined the data or just accepted a reconstruction offered by somebody who took it from somebody else, who'd made it up?
 
> And why should I take your word when I have my own?
 
Well, at least I've offered some concrete evidence, not just my humble opinion or speculative guesses.
 
[PCR]
Sorry. You have offered nothing in the way of evidence --- just an opinion.
 
>> The cognates I'm aware of suggest an original meaning like 'glow, produce luminescence'.
 
> Not the way I interpret them at all. The idea is 'something bare that is reflective and stands out from the decidedly unbare environment'.
 
If just keep rephrasing your original assertion without substantiating it, the discussion is getting nowhere.
 
[PCR]
Yes, I agree.