Re: [tied] Re: PIE's closest relatives

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 13:04:37 +0000, Marco Moretti
<marcomoretti69@...> wrote:

>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 06:05:50 +0000, Glen Gordon <glengordon01@...>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Marco inputs:
>> >>Akkadian /eru:/ is not from /*weru:/.
>> >
>> >Alright. Where _is_ it from?
>>
>> The usual transcription erû(m) (not eru:) suggests a contracted
>vowel,
>> probably /i/ + /u/. I think the form can be reconstructed as
>*weri?-u(m)
>> (acc. *weri?-a(m), etc.), but that's based on old notes, I'm not
>100% sure.
>>
>> An interesting word in this context is the Hebrew for copper, <?
>arad>
>> (aleph-resh-daleth).
>
>In Akkadian final -u:(m) (I have no characters with circumflex
>accents on my keybord, in Italy they are considered useless) can be
>not only from /i/ + /u/ but also from /a/ + /u/ or from /u/ + /u/.

Yes. In this case, however, the form seems to go back to /i/+/u/ (but my
source is indirect: Vennemann, to be exact).

>Now, I know the Hebrew word /?ara:d/, "bronze", but I'm not satisfied
>with an ancient /w/ becoming /?/ in Hebrew.

Semitic w- > Hebrew y-.

>/?ara:d/ is probably
>unrelated both with /eru:(m)/ and with /urudu/, due to impervious
>phonetic difficulties.

It cannot correspond to (w)erû(m), but a connection with <urudu> doesn't
seem too far-fetched. An original *arudu could explain both forms, with
vowel harmony giving Sum. urudu and Hebr. ?arad(a), respectively.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...