From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 40614
Date: 2005-09-25
----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2005 10:18 AM
Subject: 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/GP4qlB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------~->
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>