Re: [tied] *kap-

----- Original Message -----
From: "etherman23" <etherman23@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 9:57 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] *kap-


> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
> wrote:
>
> > ***
> > Patrick:
> >
> > No borrowing is ever out of the question completely as some future
> > etymologist will, no doubt, exclaim when he sees what the Japanese
> have made
> > of 'McDonald's'; however, why should we consider a loan until all
> ancestral
> > possibilities have been thoroughly rejected? If I understand the
> question,
> > the major problem with *kap- for some is two voiceless stops in the
> root, a
> > PIE no-no.
>
> Two voiceless stops isn't a problem. Two voiced stops is. So that's
> not the issue here. There's two problems. First is that a single
> reconstruction isn't possible. Some languages point to *kap, others to
> *kabh, and others to *ghabh. It would be an odd coincidence if these
> were separate roots that just happen to be very similar.

***
Patrick:

Well, firstly, I think the meaning for *ghabh- in Latn praebeo:, 'proffer',
OHG geban, 'give', and Lithuanian gabenù, 'take away', is the original one.
I believe this word originally referred to a ritual act of hanging things on
a tree or post as an offering to a deity or ruler. The giver presents, and
the receptor can say: "This gold has been offered to me" = "I take/have this
gold (via an offering)". The term *ghabh(o)lo- is instructive in this
regard: '*place where offerings are hanged, fork of branch'.

So I see no point in connecting *ghabh- with either *kab- or *kap-.

***



Of course if
> it's a loanword then we'd expect difficulty in reconstructing a single
> form.

***
Patrick:

An interesting thought but who has demonstrated it?


***

The second problem is the occurance of *a. It's not supposed to
> exist in PIE. Personally I have no problem with this because I think
> PIE did have an *a. But if we take the view that every *a actually
> comes from *H2e then we have a problem. We'd expect IIr. **khap in the
> full grade or **k(h)ip in the zero grade. Neither of these appear in
> Pokorny. Instead we have kapati, an expected development from *kapeti.

***
Patrick:

If the word started out of PIE *k(h)a:p-, and was shortened to *kap- before
the Ablaut vowel was introduced in some languages, you would have
<kapat.i:>, 'two handfuls'. We should not expect all PIE *k(h) to show up in
IIr as *kh.

***

> > Without boring you with details, I suspect strongly that the word
> > should be reconstructed as **k(h)a(:)p- from a pre-PIE *kho?ap-,
> which would
> > radically change the root form. By itself, *kap- implies *kaHp- or
> *k(h)ap-,
> > leading to **ka:p- since *a cannot be maintained in PIE without having
> > undergone (temporary) lengthening through either a laryngeal or lost
> and
> > compensated aspiration.
>
> The IIr evidence seems to rule this out since it has no voiceless
> aspirate. I also didn't see any form with *a:. If one doesn't believe
> in PIE *a then this pretty much has to be a borrowing.

***
Patrick:

And what language do you suppose to be the source?

***