Re: [tied] PIE suffix -ro and different beings ressembling with cou

On 2006-01-07 02:59, alexandru_mg3 wrote:

> 1. Latin niger 'dark;black' < PIE *negW-ro 'ressembling-with/like the
> dark-color' (but of course having a different nature)

Why "of course", and what "different nature"? In what way is 'dark'
different from 'resembling dark'? And "of course" Lat. niger means just
'dark, black' etc., not 'resembling a dark colour'.

> For cognates of the root *negW- 'to get dark':
> See Albanian njegull 'dark fog' <-> Romanian negurã 'id.'< PIE *negW-
> ulo '

You forget the variant <mjegull>. What we possibly have here is a
contamination between better-known words for 'fog, mist' such
*h3migH-lah2- and *nebH-elo-. There's practically no extra-Latin support
for this *negW- 'get dark' root as proposed by some.

> NOTE-for-Patrick: I cannot see any special intensity of the dark-color
> in the 'niger' word :)
>
> NOTE-1 : We can see here a PIE root having an alternance *nekW-/gW-
> 'dark' =>if we would add also *nokW-t-i-s 'night' here => that could
> be an old *-to extension meaning "'full-of' dark; 'the complete' dark"
>
> NOTE-2: Please note also that is *nokW-t-i-s 'full-of dark' not *nokW-
> n-i-s 'resulted from darkness' or nokW-r-i-s 'similar-with the
> darkness (but having a different nature)' :) )

*nokWt-s (gen. *nekWt-s) is a root noun (secondarily transformed into an
i-stem in some branches). There's no compelling reason to analyse it as
*negW-t- with an arbitrary extension, inasmuch as Hitt. ne-ku-uz-zi
'gets dark' may easily reflect *nekWt-ti.

> 3. Romanian barzã 'stork' should be also in this case from *bhrh1g'-ro
> (and the Alb. bardhë 'white' remains from *bhrh1g'-o)
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> BRAVO, Piotr!!! - I rejected your above idea: Rom. barza 'stork' >
> *bhrh1g'-ro (> ORom. bardza) but I better understand it now, based on
> the semantism of the suffix *-ro (-> now I will wait that you will
> accept too this semantism :))

Sorry to have to repeat myself, but I derive Alb. bardhë (and the
Romanian 'stork' word) from PIE *bHr.h1g^-o-. There's no need of
anything more complex. I further speculated that _within PIE_ the
adjective may be analysed as a simplified variant of *bHr.h1g^-ró-, but
this is of no direct relevance to the Albano-Romanian question.

> Romanian(<Dacian) *bardz-ra 'stork' is defined as => '"similar-with"
> the white-color' (but of course having a different nature (being a
> bird))

Whatever you say. But the same word means just 'white' (not 'similar to
the white colour but having a different nature') in Albanian.

Piotr