--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Sergejus Tarasovas"
<S.Tarasovas@...> wrote:
> > From: whetex_lewx [mailto:whetex_lewx@...]
>
> > (Latv., nom) ma:te, Lith. mo:te:^ (e:^ also is always long
vowel).
>
> On this forum, we use <e:> for your <e:^>, <o> for your <o:>, <aN>
("a
> nosine:"), <ã> ("tvirtaprade: a") for your <a:>, <eN>, <e~> for
your <e:>.
> Also pitch accents ("priegaides") are marked consistently (eg, ã,
e~, ý, é:,
> eñ; ^ marks Z^emaitian/Latvian broken tone). You'll be better
understood if
> you adopt this notation.
Thank you very much, it makes sense. But i think i've problams with
fonts, "a tvirtaprade" I see as c with comma above, i~ (probably if
you have in mind a,e,i,u and e...??? ã, e~, ý, é:,> eñ;) as z with
comma above, u:~ as e: with comma above, also i dont know where are
these fonts on keyboard :(. What's eñ; (i see as en;, n with comma
above). Where i should mark ^? In Latvian and Z^emaitian form (ex.:
ruo^ka and ro^nka from Lith. rank"`a" ?
> > I think upe:^ Nemunas isn't very roaring :)
>
> Tell that to Kazimieras Bu:ga.
Regrettably that he's dead :(
In Lithuania mostly upe~lis are roaring, so, stems ap- and up- could
be mingled, up- replaced ap-... Is it possible?
> > If yes,
> > look: braukti, bruks^nys, bru:z^e are one group (au<>u<>u:),
these
> > also are semantically related to brukti (to thrust, to push, to
> > swingle)
> > bre:^z^ti, braiz^yti, br^yz^is is other group (to draw, to
scratch,
> > to trace, to plough (as you wrote)), also it's related to
re:^z^ti
> > (RUSSIAN RiEZAT`)
>
> Just for the record, what "group" is uo (brúoz^as)? And o, a, e?
brúoz^as - sometimes meaning is the same as rúoz^as, bre:z^is,
bryz^is. If we talk mathematically bre:z^ti and brau~kti are
antithetic. Is^braukti = Is^brukti, do you agree?
> You must have ignored what I wrote on the Lithuanian secondary
ablaut. I
> provided some examples, but you didn't comment on them. Do you
really mean
> that, eg., pléis^e:ti 'crack, burst (iter.)', plé:s^ti 'tear' are
only
> semantically related to plúos^tas 'tuft; fiber',
plaus^ai~/plu:s^ai~ 'bast,
> fiber', plu:s^ýti 'tear (intrans.)' ?
Actually you made some changes in my mind. Bru:z^e is related to
Bre:z^ti, so ei<->i<->e:<->uo<->au
but bruk-s^- and bre^z^- have different stems and meanigs, they
aren's related semantically. Bruks^nys probably came from meaning
wound (z^aizda) made with somethink like whip, also phrase "braukti
linus" (to scutch flax).
And glau~bti 'cuddle' is only
> semantically related to glé:bti 'embrace'? And sre:~bti 'sup' to
sriubà
> 'soup'? And if you do, do you still accept that gìrtas 'drunk',
gerkle:~
glau~b- and gle:b- related stems (semantically and morphologically)
also maybe these are related to globo-ti and pri-glob-ti (pri-
gle:bti).
> 'throat' and gurkly~s 'craw' belong to the same root nest? I
wonder because
> that (i~u) is one of the models inspirating some secondary ablaut
patterns.
>
> > bre:^z^ti, braiz^yti, br^yz^is is other group (to draw, to
scratch,
> > to trace, to plough (as you wrote)), also it's related to
re:^z^ti
> > (RUSSIAN RiEZAT`)
>
> Where else in Lithuanian we find that br- ~ r- alternation?
Hmmm, let to think...
bristi - wade (conection with "going" action) and ristas (also
conection with "going action" - (ristas is adjective (or passive
participle) which is derivative from verb risnoti (but risnoti can
be from adjective risnas, the real verb is probably extinct in
modern Lith.), but we can make a wiew from related words: ristele,
ristute, risc^ia.
breiks^ti and rieks^ti (pluck, pick, gather), also ras^kyti,
ries^utas (Lv. rieksts) (nut), bras^ke: (strawberry, "ras^kyti,
bras^kyti bras^kes" (to pick strawberries), as a grybas (mushroom)
from griebti (to grab))
bras^ke:ti (to crepitate) and rius^ke:ti (to crepitate), also
folk: "Tindi rindi - ___rius^ka___, kas ten (tur) mis^ke
___trius^ka__?, bene voverus^ka, ruda kepurus^ka" (tindi-rindi-
flounced - crepitates, who crepitates there in the forest?, maybe
little squirrel, which has small brown (red) cap)
These are very rare and maybe very old, my head is heating when i
think. I think it's from PIE and b is prefix from Proto-PIE...
> > > Well, I stated essentially the same, if only additionally
> > mentioned
> > > the words with probable stem-extensions (-z^- <*-g(H)^- and -k-
<
> > *-k
> > Like in Z^vai-gz^-de, kre-gz^-de:^, la-gz-da (Latv.) and etc...?
>
> I don't know. I don't think -gz^-'s of these words share a common
origin, at
> any rate. Some -g-'s can be (East) Baltic epenthetic velars.
Ok, could these epenthetic verals be palatalized in some cases (like
these in different languages), and maybe such things vere in slavic
(which is even more palatalized than Latvian). I don't think that it
was only in East baltic, because Prussian has the same thing in
swaixtix (from *swaixta (star)), auklextes (waste after winnowing
(fanning) crops) , klexto - besom, broom...
Lith. auksas related to aus^- and Armenian osku...
> > Yes, liez^uvis is an old derivative from Laiz^yti (lick, taste),
>
> No. It's Proto-Baltic *(d)inz'u:- (< PIE *dng^H-uh-) *contaminated
> with/influenced by* the lick-word. The stem ends in -u:, so it's an
> *u:-stem. Later, when Lithuanian began to get rid of *u:-stems, -
is was
> added in the nominative causing *u: to dissolve into *-uw- > -uv-.
Exactly
> like (dial.) bruvìs 'eyebrow' < *bru:- < *h3bruh-.
>
> > Such suffixes are usable for "making" nouns, and
*bru:vis/breu:vis
> > (brown thing is right), as grio-v-a (from gria:-v-a <--
griauti),
> > dz^io-v-a.
>
> No. The v of these nouns is not a suffix -- it's the last vowel of
the stem
> of the verbs they are derived from. *gréu- > *grjáu-te:i> *grjã:u-
á: >
> *grjã:w-á: > griov-à.
These weren't good examples. What could you say about lys-v-e: (bed
in the fields), smar-v-e: (a stink), ger-v-e: (crane), Liet-uv-a
(Lithuania), liet-uv-as, le:kt-uv-as (plane), lygint-uv-as (rectifer
(elctronic), smoothing-iron), Lauk-uv-a (toponym) (from laukas
(field)). V- suffix is usable in Slavic (you know this, because (I
guess) you are Slavist (Slavonicist).
>
> > But why non-Balto-Slavic??? You say Bruk-ti is loan-word?
>
> No. I meant it possibly has *cognates* in non-Balto-Slavic
languages.
>
> > Brukti ~ Brau~kti, so first was -au~, which was shortened to -u,
> > because in au~ u has circumflex.
>
> It wasn't "shortened". It's a nil grade.
What means nil grade? As you wrote griauti is from *greu-. Most
verbs have the same diphthong in the stem:
brautis-braunasi-brove:si, kautis-kaunasi-kove:si, mauti-mauna-
move:, gauti-gauna-gavo, s^aukti-s^aukia-s^auke:, liautis-liaujasi-
liove:si, s^auti-s^auna-s^ove:...
So?
> > > I'm afraid to surprise you one more time, but I don't know the
> > word
> > > as well. Is it a by-version of akìbroks^tas?
> >
> > No, eye-line, eye-strisch, aki-bru:ks^nis, do you know word
> > bru:ks^nys? :)
>
> So there's no such word (+akibru:z^is) in your Lithuanian? What
did you mean
> by mentioning it then? That such a word is in principle possible
and if it
> existed it would provide a clue to the etymology of PIE *h3bruh-?
This form is clear for Lithuanian, but it's not natural. I refuse
it, because z^ isn't suffix in Lith. as -v, it's part of stem, and
it can not be related to brow, brov`, bruvìs in Lith. dialect.
Bruvìs probably from eastern dialects and i didn't know about it.
I compare bruvìs with "dark thing". Also English brow-brown, German
Braun and Braue, i tak dals^e...
Also about such suffixes as -v in Lithuanian.
There are a lot of them: -m, -l, -n, -d, -kl, -t and etc...
Ex.: gel-m-e: (deepness), vers-m-e: (spring, rill), stra^u-m-e
(Latv. - stream), var-l-e: (frog), gal-v-a (head), ger-kl-e:
(mouth), z^ir-kl-e:s (scissors, clipper), liz-d-as, ligz-d-s (Lv.),
pir-d-a (dial. - back, rump), vil-n-a (wool), gir-n-a (millstone),
mil-t-ai (flour)...
mostly nouns in Lith. and PIE were made from verbs and adjectives by
adding these suffixes. Suffixes have some changes in Lith. but they
are still usable as we see.
gelme from gilus (deep), straume from *straut (Lith. sro-v-e: from
sru:ti (srauti in dial.)), versme from virti (boil, bubble, as hot
springs bubbles), varle: is related to Proto-Baltic var- or vor- or
ver-, but this stem was issolated only in varle:, galva from galas
(ending of body), gerkle: from gerti (drink), z^irkle:s from z^ergti
(rasstavlyat in Russian, i don't know translation in English), liz-d-
as and ligz-d-as also from verb but it's extinct (probably), d is
mutation of infinitive suffix -t in verbal nouns. Vilna from velti
(to tangle, to felt), girna from gru:sti (to grind), miltai from
malti (to mill, to grind, to flour).
> > No, you just look at "brauz^ti related to bruz^e:^", stem brau:k-
,
> > i've wrote about this above.
>
> How come? The stem of brau~z^ti is //brauk-//? I see no k in
brau~z^ti -- I
> observe z^ instead.
Ok, you proved it for me above.