Re: [tied] Re: sanskrit"bhuman"

From: Glen Gordon
Message: 16117
Date: 2002-10-10

>No, *bHudH-m(e)n- (related e.g. to Skt. budHna- 'ground',
>as well as to Eng. bottom, Ger, boden, Gk. putHme:n, Lat.
>fundus), and *bHuh2-m(e)n- (> IIr *bHu:man-, also *bHu:mi-,
>*bHu:mi: 'the earth, world', related to Gk. pHu:ma 'growth'), are two
>different words from different though
>similar-looking roots. *bHeuh2- meant 'grow, arise, be'.

Actually, on a note related to the neighbouring
"extensions" discussion, I suspect that *bHeux- and
*bHeudH- _are_ in fact related. The connection would be
the idea of "rising from the ground" from an earlier
**bheu-. Hence, *bHeu-x- would originally have meant
"grow" more in the sense of plants. This etymology
doesn't just work well internally but also in a Nostratic
context (note Uralic *pu: "tree").

But perhaps I'm just mad so everybody is welcome to
nay-say that idea with constructive reasoning.

- gLeN

Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: