--- In cybalist@..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...> wrote:
> 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.
>
The problem with your analysis etc-
Well let's say instead that I think we see the concepto-historico-
religio-stuff situation differently. I guess from your description
that you see the religious and the secular at that time as separate
and never the twain ... etc. I see it this way: Roman society is
conservative and reflects an earlier situation, in the other
societies these two words (Benveniste discusses only one, the
presumed causative) are "herabgesunkenes Kulturgut", concepts
percolated down from a higher social layer. Parabolare > parler, to
take an example. An early Christian termus technicus becomes
trivialized by frequent use.
I'll never let "the beyond" alone. It's too much fun. Or perhaps
I read too much Levi-Strauss.
> 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.
>
This is a question of scientific method (and perhaps of ethics, too?)
I don't and I think I will never understand the "ignorant by
association" method of sifting knowledge. If somebody presents with
a set of ideas and I am able by my own expert knowledge to prove
some of them wrong, I never assume that the rest of the ides are
wrong. Until I am able to prove them wrong too, I will have to
entertain the notion that they might be right.
My point was: how on earth did Manansala come up the two *bheH2-'s
without (presumably) having read Grassmann, his other faults
notwithstanding?
As someone once said: Even paranoiacs get persecuted sometimes.
> 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.
>
Perhaps we should also solicit the opinion of a geologist. Sundaland
was flooded, and if the Sundalanders were not suicidal, they
dispersed.
> 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
Of course it's raw material.
And this is exactly why I presented the material to this assembly of
great and good linguists - I thought, this is too big for me to sift,
I need some expert advice here; otherwise people will blame me bear
of little mind for trying to sift it myself with my limited expert
knowledge.
As for *man-, put yourself in bronze age man's position. How would
you explain how the world moved? Why it moved? Other than by some
great autonomous force (Force?) associated with reproduction, the
mind, which lived on in mounds, after you were buried there?
I used to work in Artificial Intelligence. A program called
Eurisko by Douglas Lenat tried to shuffle around with basic concepts
about the world. It came up with something similar, which I will
tell about later.
Torsten
>
> ----- 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