On 2006-01-30 12:35, tgpedersen wrote:
> With much mental effort I think I discovered what you mean here:
> Since *ni-sed- has a proven connection with the PIE root *sed-
> "sit",
So far, so good.
> it can't be connected with my "speculative interpretation",
> ie. a derivation from OC s^e´l "west; roost, perch". But what I
> claim is that PIE *sed- _is_ OC *s^e´l, namely a loan. In other
> words, the two are identical. Now when you try to disprove my claim
> of the identity of the two, you use implicitly a claim that PIE *sed-
> is _different_ from OC *s^e´l. But you haven't proved that.
I haven't even attempted to disprove this OC connection, though I can
hardly imagine how such a loan (how old?) could have become so tightly
integrated with the IE grammatical system as to develop the attested,
very much native-looking, pattern of related paradigms, including e.g.
the ubiquitous reduplicated present *si-sd-e/o-, likely traces of Narten
forms, and other stuff datable to PIE rather than more recent stages,
and showing *sed- to be an old primary verb. Of course a loan from OC to
_PIE_ can be ruled out for chronological reasons (as opposed to, say, a
loan from some eastern IE dialect into OC), and a shared loan from some
essentially unidentifiable eastern source, for want of tangible
evidence, is not something that can be profitably discussed.
As for connecting the "west" word with the above, are there any reflexes
of your hypothetical *we-sd- outside Germanic? If we analyse *west(ero)-
together with the other cardinal direction terms, the first thing that
suggests itself is the division *wes-tero- parallel to the other three.
This, however, can well be an analogical deformation of older *wesp-ero-
< *we-kWsp-ero- (cf. Skt. ks.ap- 'night'), through which we can explain
<west>, <vesper> and <vec^er> at one time.
>> > Please connect *hosd- with arms, forks, growth, etc.
>>
>>Come on, you haven't connected it securely with 'sit' yet.
>
>
>
> Pokorny does, I might add, Patrick-style.
>
It's shaky none the less.
Piotr