Re: [tied] PIE word for "people"

----- Original Message -----
From: "Grzegorz Jagodzinski" <grzegorj2000@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2005 8:07 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] PIE word for "people"


> Patrick Ryan wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Grzegorz Jagodzinski" <grzegorj2000@...>
> > To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2005 7:41 PM
> > Subject: Re: [tied] PIE word for "people"

<snip>

> > So, the name of Rome comes from an Etruscan word meaning 'ford'? Was
> > there a ford across the Tiber at the site of Rome. No! What a
> > pitifully silly etymology.
>
> Yes... naming a town "people" would be pitifully wise.
>
> > Oh, named for a bridge. Same word for
> > 'bridge' and 'ford'???? No other bridges across the Tiber so that is
> > 'the' bridge? Be real.
>
> Lat. pons, Greek pontos and Russian put'... the same IE word for "bridge",
> "sea" and "way"???? Btw. nobody claims that the Etruscan word meant both
> "bridge" and "ford" at the same time.


***
Patrick:

In the reference you gave, <ruma> is listed, followed by 'bridge, ford'. If
such a word _actually_ existed, which I doubt, and its basal meaning was
'crossing(-place)', it could certainly mean 'bridge' and 'ford' at the same
time.

Rick McCallister and his wife are not recognized experts on Etruscan (Hence,
"who is RMCC?") You are not an acknowledged expert in Etruscan. Hence, "who
cares?" That is, your opinion on Etruscan questions carries little weight.
Calling attention to their and your lack of authority in Etruscan matters is
perfectly legitimate.) And in the dictionaries of people who are recognized
as experts, I see no <ruma>. Perhaps you can give me a recognized source of
such a word? After the entry in his online dictionary, they put "[rmcc]"; I
presume this means that _they_ abstracted *<ruma> from <rumax>. Are they
qualified to do such? Is <ruma> as either 'bridge' or 'ford' attested
anywhere in the corpus outside of RMCC's imagination?

Is there one acknowledged expert in Etruscan who posits a <ruma> meaning
'bridge, ford'?

***
>
> > What is the source of that etymology? Why, Rick McCallister, of
> > course? Who is Rick McCallister? Why, nobody, of course.
>
> Oh, how fine, I am not alone now! I am nobody, Rick McCallister is nobody.
> Only Patrick Ryan is Mr. Someone. Geez... I feel like in a kindergarten.
>
> Is there such a custom on this list to insult not only one another but
> also
> the absent ones? Sorry, it is not a game I love.
>

***
Patrick:

When you cite sources that are suspect, you should not be surprised if
someone calls attention to the practice. And your own opinion on Etruscan
questions can also be questioned.

I have not claimed and do not claim to be an Etruscan specialist. I only
claim that I attempt, whenever possible, to quote only from a reliable
source, which, at this point, I do not believe McCallister's is.

I did not claim that <ruma> does not exist. I only claimed that people who
should know about it, if it does exist, do not seem to substantiate it.

***

***
> >> 2) Are there towns or villages called just "people"? I am just
> >> curious because it seems highly improbable. Instead, the etymology
> >> "bridge" or "ford" for a town upon a river sounds reliable.
> > ***
> > Patrick:
> >
> > It is common all over the world for tribal names to be simply
> > '(hu)men' in the language of the designators.
>
> Oh yes, Mr. Ryan knows that there was a tribe in Italy whose name was
> Roma.
> Could Mr. Ryan inform me what is the reliable source of this revelation? I
> have always been thinking that Roma is a place name, not a tribal name.
> And
> the people of Roma called themselves Romani, not Roma. But who am I...
> lower
> than dirt....

***
Patrick:

Nowhere did I state or imply that G. is "lower than dirt". To introduce this
is typical of desperate argumentation: set up a red herring to fill the nose
so the eyes neglect the obvious. Is it a plea for pity?

Notice, no comment on my assertion that tribal names often mean simply
'(hu)man'. If it were untrue, surely we would have enjoyed some snappy
rejoinder.

My hypothesis regarding the nomenclature is that a people settled at Rome,
who called each other *ro:m ('adult human'[PCR]), and, collectively
*ro:m-a:. When they needed to designate an individual as a member of the
*ro:ma:, they called him/her *ro:ma:-n(o). When they wanted to specify
several *ro:ma:-n(o), they formed a plural *ro:ma:n-i. If there is anything
linguistically objectionable to this theorized process, I would be glad to
learn of it.

***

> >> 3) Gypsy rom < Sanskrit d.omba- 'a man of a lower caste, musician'.
> >> This word is not IE and has not any r's.
> >
> > ***
> > Patrick:
> >
> > Yes, that is the etymology offered by people who believe the Gypsies
> > are lower than dirt. Is that your opinion also?
>
> My opinion is that the Gypsies are musicians. And that is why I find this
> etymology correct. But who am I... but only Mr. Ryan can be right here. Of
> course Gipsies are just Romans... sorry, they were "Roma"... they were
> Rome
> :-).

***
Patrick:

I did not claim that Gypsies were Romans only that they have a
self-designation which, on the surface, derives from the same ultimate
sources. More red herrings.

***


> >> 4) I have not found **ra:ma- 'name of people' - if anybody has found,
> >> please
> >> cite the source. All I have been able to find is ra:ma- 'dark, black,
> >> pleasant, beautiful', also 'kind of deer' and nomen proprium Ra:ma
> >
> > ***
> > Patrick:
> >
> > Obviously, Sante Fe has crummy Sanskrit resources.
>
> Santa Fe?
>
> > Try Sanskrit-English Dictionary, Sir Monier Monier-Williams, p. 877:
> > "pl. N. of a people". Unlike your resource RMCC, I do not make up
> > what a need for an argument.
>
> Thank you so much. Yes, you are right, indeed Monier gives such a special
> meaning, not even mentioned in other sources. But you know... my native
> language does not use articles, and my English is really terribly broken.
> But, contrary to you, I am pretty sure what "name of _a_ people" mean. And
> it must be obvious for everybody except you that it means "black ones" (or
> just "the Negroes") or "beautiful ones". And this word no way can mean
> "mankind" or "people".

***
Patrick:

Oh, another person who thinks what he believes should be "obvious" to
everyone. Proof, unnecessary. Why do we even need this discussion list when
all is so obvious to the discerning?

PIE *a: and *o both produce Old Indian <a:>. Therefore, <ra:ma-> could
derive from either *ro:m- or *re:-mo-, 'colored'. And yes, I think *re:mo-
is woven into the Roman story.

The legend of Romulus and Remus, I believe, portrays the capture of Roman
territory by Romulus (*ro:mo-lo-, 'big *ro:m-') through the elimination of a
darker set of inhabitants symbolized by Remus (*re:-mo-). Were these
Etruscans? Perhaps.

***

> >>>
> >>> It is also in Egyptian rmT, 'men, mankind';
> >>
> >> I have found the following for 'people, men':
> >> mr.w
> >> nty.w
> >> rXy.t (X = h with arch)
> >> wnny.w
> >> w?s^.t
> >>
> >> And rmT = 'man', not 'mankind'
> >
> > ***
> > Patrick:
> >
> > Apparently, you cannot get hold of a decent Egyptian dictionary
> > either.
> > Even the cheapest one, A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian,
> > Raymond O. Faulkner, p. 149: "rmT, man, pl. men,
> > mankind....Egyptians".
>
> Maybe because it is the cheapest
>
> Beinlich Search Results
> Word Translation Reference
> mw.t-rmT Gebärmutter Wb II S. 54
> nxx-rmT.w [Beiname des Sonnengottes] Wb II S. 314
> rmT Mensch Wb II S. 421
> rmT Menschen (fem.) Wb II S. 424
> rmT.t Menschheit, Leute Wb II S. 424
> rmT.w Menschen Wb II S. 422
> rmT.w Männer (Gegensatz Frauen) Wb II S. 423
> rmT.w-nb alle Leute Wb II S. 424
> rmT-jz.t Arbeiter Wb I S. 127
> rmT-aA Reicher? Wb I S. 162
> rmT-mSa gemeiner Soldat Wb II S. 424
> rmT-nb irgendjemand Wb II S. 424
> rmT-rqw feindseliger Mensch Wb II S. 452
> rmT-hA Fronarbeiter? Wb II S. 475
> rmT-hAj.t [Arbeiter] Wb II S. 424
> rmT-zAw Gefangener Wb II S. 424
> rmT-smd.t Untergebener Wb IV S. 147
> rmT-grg Ansiedler Wb II S. 424
> rmT-D.t Leibeigene Wb II S. 424
>
>
> Once again, I do not state that rmT.w (plural) did not mean "people,
> mankind". I have only stated that rmT (sg.) = "man", not "mankind".

***
Patrick:

It seems that you are not familiar with Egyptian spelling conventions.

Since I have a copy of Wörterbuch (about $1,000 when available) in addition
to the "cheapest" to which you referred above, I could easily check whether
<rmT> was, indeed, ever written with <.w>. I was unable to find a single
instance in Old, Middle, or Late Egyptian. It does have three strokes behind
it when it means 'mankind',

Gardiner, who produced a grammar that most students of Egyptian come across,
has, on p. 52: "rmT 'men', 'people'. Notice, Ma, no <.w>. On p. 61 of his
_Egyptian Grammar, we find: "4. The plural of rmT 'man' (Latin homo) is
written r-T-sitting man-three strokes or r-T-sitting man-sitting woman-three
strokes but appears from such phrases as rmT nb.t 'all men' to be properly a
feminine collective rmT(t); very rarely the writing rm.t nb.t is found."

Your *"rmT.w" is pure fantasy.

***

> >>> Burushaski rôm, 'clan, tribe, community'.
> >
> > ***
> > Patrick:
> >
> > Hmmm? You do not question the Burushaski? I will bet I know why.
>
> Because the etymology based on:
> 1) one word from Sanskrit used incidentally as a name of a people and
> normally having different meaning,
> 2) a town name, with uncertain etymology, but probably related to
> "passage",
> "bridge" or "ford",
> 3) one word with Old Egyptian, without no good Afro-Asiatic etymology but
> possibly related to West Chadic *ram- "land, place"
> 4) one word from an isolated language
> cannot be taken too seriously.


***
Patrick:

What is "incidental" about <ra:ma>?

If the etymology is "uncertain", what makes the relationship "probabl(e)"?

"Without no good"? Are double negatives a Polish feature?

I have already pointed out that a man of the stature of Pokorny (ahd his
estimable associates) has yet to address PS and PAA reconstruction. In my
opinion, one can hardly say that there are any "good Afro-Asiatic"
etymologies.

One word from an isolated language is exactly where we might hope to find an
ancient term retained.

***

<snip>

> > You really need a good library. There is, of course, PIE *monu-,
> > 'man', which correlates with all these except mnyw. Why in God's name
> > would anyone think that a 'shepherd' was 'the man'?
>
> "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain"

***
Patrick:

I am not a Christian nor a Jew so that injunction, which originally meant
'cursing God' for not producing prayed for results, does not apply.

Please do not interject your religious beliefs into this discussion.

***

> > You need a course
> > in Fingerspitzengefühl also to complement the "IMPLAUSIBLE SEMANTICS
> > 101" that you obviously have taken.
>
> Polish "chlop": 1) a man, 2) a farmer
>
> Why would anyone think that a "farmer" is "the man"?

***
Patrick:

Probably because so many Poles are farmers? Why do you think?

***

> > The proper Egyptian word to
> > compare here is mn, 'someone'.
>
> mn nicht vorhanden sein Wb II S. 59
> mn Nichtvorhandensein Wb II S. 59
> mn in Empfang nehmen Wb II S. 60
> mn bleiben, fest sein Wb II S. 60
> mn bleibt, der Restbetrag ist... Wb II S. 63
> mn der und der, N.N. Wb II S. 64
> mn dauerndes Opfer Wb II S. 66
> mn [Krug] Wb II S. 66
> mn Stoff zum Kleid Wb II S. 66
> mn [Maß für Kleiderstoffe] Wb II S. 66
> mn krank sein Wb II S. 66
> mn Leidender Wb II S. 67
> mn [Produkt aus Syrien] Wb II S. 68
> mn Berg Wb II S. 69
> mn <<Wechsel mit {mA}>> Smith, M.: In: Fs Lüddeckens S. 193 - 210
> mn wer? (= {nm}) Meeks: AL 77.1689
> mn versetzen Meeks: AL 77.1704
> mn getrennt sein(?) Meeks: AL 78.1703
>
>
>
> mn 'who?', or 'N.N.', probably secondarily instead of jnm or nm 'who?'.

***
Patrick:

Is somebody there? Who is there? I think the semantic relationship is fairly
clear to most of us.

As for jnm, metathesis is the last resort of an argument bereft of
substance.

***

> Sorry, I know it is not a list on Old Egyptian. It was only for
> rectifying.
>
> Perhaps I "simply do not have the intelligence to participate productively
> on this list", and anyway my intelligence is less than this one of Mr.
> Ryan
> but I have also less fantasy than him. And when I do not know something, I
> just ask or check, and I do not tell stupid and offensive things.
>
> Grzegorz J.
>

***
Patrick:

You have been offensive to me. So let us hope that will cease in the future.

***
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with
> voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>