From: Piotr Gasiorowski
Message: 5773
Date: 2001-01-25
----- Original Message -----
From: "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...>
To: <cybalist@egroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 2:43 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Poets, linguists and countrymen.
Lend me your ears...
> I'm confused. Beg forgiveness but what is the suffix *-?n-
(*-h1n-) for?
A thematised version of consonantal *-h1o:n, forming
compound-like derivatives; an interesting element --
something we could talk about in a separate thread.
> Actually, I can think of another better commonality
between oaks and
> mountains than just simply that they are "big"...
>
> They both happen to hold up the sky.
"Pillars of the universe" are fine, as far as I'm concerned.
Tall trees other than the oak (English fir < OE furh) have
names derivable from *prk(u)-. By the way, the Germanic
"mountain" word *fergu:nj- has left traces in the toponymy
of southern Poland (Silesia and the province of Krakow).
Slavs borrowed it as *pergynja (*f > *p substitution is
normal), hence several placenames with the element Przeginia
'steep hillside'.
> I will disagree. I can accept an oak or mountain
connection with the storm
> god but not a "tall" connection. The storm god wasn't any
taller than any
> other god of the pantheon and usually if anything it is
*Yemos, the earth,
> in all his variants that is praised for his panoramic
size. I think we
> should keep the *-kW- for now.
What for? Where's the comparative evidence for it? I think
the only reason why *perkWu- has been reconstructed for the
"oak" word is the distant assimilation in Latin (*kW...kW <
*p...kW, i.e. quercus < *kWerkWus < *perkWus like coquo: <
*kWekWo: < *pekWo: or quinque < *kWenkWe < *penkWe). But in
Latin (and elsewhere in centum languages) the *k : *kW
contrast is neutralised before *u, and even PIE *perkWus
looks odd. Assimilation may have occurred in derived forms
containing *perkwe- = */perku-e-/, such as querque:tum
'oakwood'. Note the _absence_ of labiovelar assimilation in
Hercynia.
> Hmm, well even if we reconstruct a "oak/mountain" deity
called *PerkWnos
> (and not *Perku:nos), a kind of Central Object deified, I
still have
> skepticism.
Do, by all means, scepticism is a healthy thing. But I'm
slightly puzzled by your insistence that the name should be
*PerkWnos -- a nonexistent form as far as I'm aware. Where
exactly can we find support for it?
> What exactly is your justification for two seperate gods,
I wonder?
Comparative. We have this Germano/Baltic *perku:n(j)o- form
relatable to the NW IE word for "mountain" (the "oak/large
tree" connection is rather weak in these particular groups,
though it could be claimed for Germanic). On the other hand,
we have Hittite perun-a-/perun-ant- 'rock', Pirwas 'Rock
God' (< *perwo:n+s? I remember Eichner's mention of
Anatolian heteroclitic *per-wr 'rock', but don't remember if
he has any direct evidence for -war), Old Indic parvata- <
*perwn-to- 'mountain', which could be connected with Slavic
*perunU 'thunderbolt' (< reshaped *perUn- or vrddhied
*peryn-? cf. Perynja) via the mythical interpretation of
thunderbolts as fire-striking stone darts. I see two
different _names_ here. How many _gods_ they correspond to
is disputable. Maybe just one, with a name that was an easy
target for word-play, taboo distortion or whatever.
Piotr