From: alex
Message: 22306
Date: 2003-05-27
----- Original Message -----
From: "Piotr Gasiorowski" <piotr.gasiorowski@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 1:46 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Androphobia sucks
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" <alxmoeller@...> wrote:
>
> > BTW, the Greek "androphos". Is the slavic "trupU" somehow related
here
> > too? If yes, is there a verb in slavic too, derived from "trupU"?
>
> Do you mean <antHro:pos>, or <ane:r>/<andros>? Well, whichever it is,
> neither of them is related to <trupU>, which, as far as I know,
> originally meant 'block of wood' (hence one as dead as a ...). <ane:r>
> is from PIE *h2ner- 'man' (the /d/ in <andr-> is epenthetic, as in
> English <thunder> from <thunr->). <antHro:pos> has no single accepted
> etymology. The ancient Greeks already "explained" it in a number of
> pre-scientific ways, and we're hardly any wiser today.
>
> Piotr
well, as you well know, the Albanian "trup" and romanian "trup"= body,
is supposed to derive from slavic "trupU".
Regardless this acceptance I just wondered about the Rom. verb "întrupa"
which suppose an older *antrupa
întrupa= to get a form ( generally admited as form of human being), to
incarnate, to unify, to make only one.
I guess it is a selfevidence that "antHro:pos" = "întrupa" but I won't
wonder if someone will say there is no relationship
between these two words and of course slavic "block of wood" gave in
Rom. and Albanian coincidentaly the sense of "body", sensed which are in
fact the senses of the Greek "anthropos" too.
Alex