[tied] Re: bhratr

Ahh, it's my old friend Slawomir from another list, who posts
in "groci kapusta" style!

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski
<piotr.gasiorowski@...> wrote:

> 07-10-03 19:31, johnshocky wrote:
>
> > Is it theoretically incorrect to calculate the objective

criterion

> > the "smallest amount of mutations" from other any other point?

E.g.

> > Proto-Germanic?
> > Then to see if sum of all language family mutation is bigger or
> > smaller?
>
> I've passed this message for the sake of the above question, which
> deserves an honest answer. It's really about the "rooting" of the

family

> tree, i.e. about deciding whether a given branch proto-language

(e.g.

> Proto-Germanic) derives from PIE rather than the other way out.
> Fortunately, language changes are clearly directional, which means

that

> you can't reverse them at will. For example, there are numerous
> morphological losses/simplifications and few

additions/complications in

> the passage from PIE to PGmc. In the domain of phonology, there

are some

> conditioned changes in which the conditioning factor (e.g. free

stress)

> is present in reconstructed PIE but absent from PGmc. This again
> indicates the direction of change. So do phonemic mergers (e.g.

*a, *o >

> *a), and deletions, which are generally more common than

unconditioned

> splits or unmotivated insertions (and you'd require lots of them

to move

> from PGmc. to PIE).
>
> The number of changes needed to derive A from B is not very

important,

> especially because the rate of change is historically variable.

It's

> more important to know what kinds of change are one-way streets.
>
> > The Sanskrit is definitely archaic but is it panaca for

everything?

>
> Who says that Sanskrit is a "panacea"? Do you mean that the PIE
> reconstruction is too heavily dependent on Sanskrit? It would have

been

> true before the 1870s, but I'd say that the testimony of other

branches

> is fully appreciated nowadays. Even on this list Albanian, Baltic,
> Slavic, Armenian, Celtic, Tocharian, Germanic, etc., get as much
> attention as the "classical" IE languages such as Greek, Sanskrit

or Latin.

>
> I'll refrain from responding to the rest of your posting, which

consists

> of silly logorrhoeic babble in Polish and English. I recognise the
> unmistakable style of "slawomirmiroslawski", and I have no doubt

that

> you're the same individual under a new alias. Please don't send

any more

> such stuff. I simply won't let it get through.
>
> Piotr
>
> > In Proto-Germanic may be a word
> > Bhrother
> > Bohrater <>bohater is the same process as in
> > Oder <> Odra (a river)
> >
> > The mostly exchanged form of bhrather will be non- nominative
> > Bhradzie in east Slavic traces of h exist in bradzie bracie

bradiaga

> > (The Slavic "brat" is not used only to family members but to

close

> > friend or somebody they like to consider a friend, family member

is

> > to good known by name to talk to him bhrather)
> >
> > There is also parallel semantically close form (friend)
> > Doroze <> drOZe, dróże ,drużba, drudzia, druzia,

druh, drug, dra=

> >
> > g
> > Which mean somebody equal we follow with in space or time. Today

also

> > as wedding best man.
> >
> > What do you thing about <> which way > or < ?
> >
> > If bohratera bohater hater hero will be considered proto-word

then

> > what will be the possible earliest form of it, source?
> >
> > Boh tyż , boh tera, boz tyż, bo tyż
> > Where tyż tyrz tyZ = to also
> > boh, boż bog = god ,the top of hierarhy
> >
> > and then
> > boh, boho = bo +ho bicose high
> > bo że, bo dze = because this (his word is last to obey)
> >
> > while dzy dzub teth is the natural sound for many roots sharp,

power,

> > reason.
> >
> >
> > Perhaps this walk thru is not correct but I see that we tend to
> > explain one word by another and not to extend this thought to

end.

> >
> > Like in this example:
> > Where form is derived word A?
> > A is derived form B.
> > Ok.
> >
> > But isn't it natural to ask automatically where from is B?
> >
> >
> > John