Re: [tied] Re: Doublets in PIE

The question whether both *bHah2-'s ('say/assert/word' and 'illumine/show forth/light') should be included in the same etymon has been much discussed. Grassmann addressed on it already in his 1872 _Wörterbuch zum Rigveda_, and there is no consensus even now. Those sympathetic to the idea of lumping the two roots (and I'm among them, though the case is a bit shaky on the formal side) equate -- sensibly enough -- "reveal" with "declare".

Benveniste's semantic analysis is sound, but revolves round Latin forms and, in my opinion, Benveniste fails to make a general point about PIE. If the primitive meaning was (as you put it) "coming from the beyond"/"holy speech" (with emphasis on "holy"), why are the usual meanings outside Latin (and even partly those in Latin) less otherworldly -- say, speak, announce, assert, etc.? Religious meanings appear as well, but it would require a leap of faith to accept their primariness. Latin fa:ma and Greek phe:me: mean 'report, news' rather than 'numen'. Greek pho:ne: is just 'sound', Latin for and Sanskrit bhanati mean 'speak'. I'd settle for "show, reveal, announce", leaving "the beyond" alone.

I'm afraid I'm unable take Manansala seriously. Anyone who claims that the Indic languages are not IE and that Classical Sanskrit is a Dravidian language "with heavy Austric and IE influence" demonstrates a profound and fundamental lack of understanding of language contact, comparative linguistics and linguistic classification. His other main thesis -- about powerful Austronesian influence on Indic -- has inspires some more "discoveries" like the reversal of Middle Indo-Aryan sound changes (dhamma is said to be more "natural and primitive" than dharma, and more purely Austronesian). This isn't just over the top but positively crazy and undermines my confidence in whatever else he has to say concerning matters I know less about.

I'd like to hear an Austronesianist's opinion about the likelihood that the dispersal of AN took place out of Sundaland ca. 8000 BC.

Your lists of forms are raw material -- lookalikes picked up from a variety of languages, not screened against things like borrowing (I've spotted Sanskrit loans among your Indonesian examples). They do look similar (well, that's why you list them), though considering the alleged 10000 years of separate development one might well wonder if it isn't a liability rather than an asset. The semantic range and flexibility of meaning for your "*man-" (testicle, brain, belly, breasts, large intestine, think, people, among others) is far too loose by any standards. Anyways, what (if any) are the reconstructed PAN forms and meanings? When and how did they enter PIE and PAA? It is difficult to discuss a vague proposal -- I'd appreciate someting a little more definite.

Piotr

----- Original Message -----
From: Torsten Pedersen

To: cybalist@egroups.com

Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 12:47 PM

Subject: [tied] Re: Doublets in PIE

--- In cybalist@egroups.com, "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@......> wrote: > OK, why don't we look under the carpet and examine a few of these "doublets"? Perhaps we could find an explanation for their occurrence in PIE or at least speculate about it. I could imagine a few reasons why such root constellations exist. [snip - not unexpectedly] > Third possibility: borrowing into PIE from related but different non-IE sources at an early date. An attractive solution at times, but always hard to justify unless the source(s) can be identified with some confidence. > [snip - not unexpectedly] Explanation (confession?) (with much self-confidence) This is how my fixation with this Austric-IE-AA stuff came about. I found Møller in the library. I read him with a grain of salt, like a proper linguist should, everybody knows he's been disproved. There I find his claim that the one of the two IE-AA (yes I know, unhistorical, but this is shorthand) roots (now written as) *bheH2- is a causative formed from the other. So I think, well OK, if you say so. Next I read Benveniste about *fas- and think this must be a society with strong taboos. Then I read Oppenheimer's "Eden in the East" and am convinced: People from Sundaland probably reached the Mediterranean and influenced the peoples there. Then I find Manansala's list on the internet and he has both *bheH2-'s! This is screwy! Did he read Møller? Probably not, his concern is to prove a connection Austric-Indic. And then suddenly, if you assume a society with two sides, this side and the beyond, the affair with one *bheH2- being the causative of the other, makes sense: *bheH2- "resplendent, luminous, ie. coming from the beyond" *bheH2- "holy law, say holy speech, ie. cause to come from the beyond" (I didn't say "numinous", because then people think I have read Jung and nice people don't do that. Actually I have, but could you disregard that for a moment?) And most of Benveniste's stuff is there too! *Hrg- "king, order", *Hng- "fear, snake, destruction", *med- "center, order, medicine, spear, tree in the middle of the world". These things are central in Austronesian cultures too. So, if they came here (?), and brought a religion (?), based on an original giant disaster (?), which the religion was designed to set right (?), did they bring the words too? Please note I'm not claiming, I'm still just asking! Don't jump me too much! On the other I'm not a professional, I have no reputation to lose, and someone's gotta ask the question. Now I've asked it. Torsten