Re: [tied] Jubar

*dyu-bHaH2-s seems plausible.

Joao SL

----- Original Message -----
From: Piotr Gasiorowski <piotr.gasiorowski@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 6:15 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] Jubar


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <dmilt1896@...>
> To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 3:34 AM
> Subject: [tied] Jubar
>
>
>
> > My questions: Is 'jubar' an expected derivative of 'juba'? If so, what
is the function of the final 'r'? Or is Varro wrong again and there is some
completely different etymology? And what is the etymology of 'juba' itself
(which seems to mean "mane" rather more general "hair")?
>
>
> Pokorny has Lat. iuba 'mane' under *jeudH- (thus ultimately related to
<iubeo:>), a root I wouldn't expect to produce <iubar> as a normal
derivative in Latin. For the latter, Pokorny gives a reference I can't check
at present, but until I see a convincing derivation I'm inclined to regard
"<iubar quod iubata>" as a false popular etymology. The various Latin
meanings have 'a source of beaming light' as their common denominator, and
the word is a consonantal neuter stem (gen. iubaris). If you don't mind a
piece of speculation (quite possibly very wide of the mark), one could
imagine *dju-bHah2s- 'daylight-radiance' (cf. Vedic su-bHa:s- 'beautifully
shining') producing *(d)juba:s, *(d)jubaris > iubar, iubaris, generalising
the stem variant with rhotacism. But don't take it too seriously -- I'm just
thinking aloud.
>
> The suggestion expressed in the article you quoted -- that Venus may have
been more 'hairy-looking' or comet-like in the past -- sounds like some
Velikovskyan nonsense.
>
> Piotr
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>