Re: [tied] *kap-

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
wrote:

>

> ***
> 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-.

Where is the meaning "place where offerings are hanged" attested? From
Pokorny it seems like reconstructed meanings cold be "fork of branch,
antler, bifurcation." It's not too difficult to see how this could be
related to "grab, take." After all your fingers branch out of your hand.

> 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.

Why not? I could understand something like **khaph > **kaph in IIr,
but there's no aspiration on *p here.

> ***
>
> > > 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?
>
> ***

Presumably a Semitic language.