From: Joao S. Lopes
Message: 43450
Date: 2006-02-16
> Arabic has a root for "lick" something like l-s^-,> OC something like> *lVk- (by memory). But maybe it's not surprising> there's an /l/ in> words for "tonge" and "lick".Yes. They seem to be onomatopoeic. Physiology-induced:)-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------It seems that above Torsten's notice deserves a more profound consideration. I also spotted that sound > L< might have been directly or indirectly linked to all those words referring to water-movement (fluid). I presume that erstwhile meaning of âlâ (li-) was pour, shed, flow, splash, spray⦠In combination with âgâ or âgnâ (perhaps meaning, drive, go /gone) later appeared other verbs likewise âlickâ, âlieâ (liegen; horizontal position of water â river, lake, sea), âlakeâ, âlinguaâ. For instance, Sanskrit âlakayatiâ has the meaning âto tasteâ (le-lihyase â you are licking; Eng. lick, Russ. лизаÑÑ, Serb. lizati /lignuti>liznuti); âlagâ â to meet, come in contact, and adhere; laghaya â to make light, lessen, diminish ( Eng. light, Russ. легко, Serb. lak, lako.I do not want to be boring and I will try to explain such a âphilosophy of languageâ using two examples:1. Probably, one could hardly say that English word âsleepâ has anything to do with fluid but if we compare this word with Sanskrit âsvapatiâ (Serb. spavati - to sleep) we shall see something unusual. Namely, it seems that English âsleepâ (Got. slepan sleep) could be equal to Serbian adj. âslepâ (blind). When in sleep, human being is literally sightless, is it not? Serbian verb âslepitiâ (za-lepiti, lepak to glue, glue) and âslepetiâ (getting blind) are obviously in a close logical relation and both words were a derivation of the verb âslivatiâ (primary âs-li-ba-tiâ) â suffuse, flood. In addition, there are another two verbs in Serbian: âsljubitiâ (adjoin like riversâ mouth; ljubiti â kiss) and âslupatiâ (slew, shatter, ruin). Even if it looks as we have cleared one problem; a serious-minded reader would have asked why Serbian used verb âspavatiâ instead of âslepetiâ? Let us thumb through the Serbian dictionary. We have found the verb âzalepljivatiâ or âslepljivatiâ (gluing a certain parts together) and âuspavljivatiâ (lull a baby). Uslepljivati > uspavljivati? Of course, it sounds morbid if we have to come down a baby by blinding (uslepljenje > uspavljenje) but according to this analysis it was the truth. Finnaly, there is the word âizbavljenjeâ (salvation; âslivatiâ again!?) similar to another âweirdâ relation among âsmrtâ (death), âsmiritiâ (to calm down) and âmirâ (peace); absolutely in concordance with the main postulates in Buddhist religion (nirvana).2. The second example I wanted to explain was the English âslipâ(Serb. kliznuti/ kli-gnu-t, gladiti) but now I see it would be unnecessary, because it is quite clear that water âglidesâ (Serb. gladi) over the solid surface; i.e. it âslipsâ (sliva-ti). Serbian adj. âglatkoâ (sleek, glossy, polished) is the basis for the word âledâ (ice, gladak led - sleek ice). Hence Serbian adj. "hladan" (cold, Ger. kalt), "hlad" (shade, "it is much cooler in the shade")...Latin âlinguaâ also may be connected to the above âli-gnaâ (lignuti > liznuti - lick). On the other side, Serbian âjezikâ (tongue, language) appeared from the compound word âjezeroâ (lake, Sanskrit kaasaaraH, geyser); "jeza" (cold), "jezhiti" (creeps; as if a tongue is "gliding" over the neck) â water again!Best regards,Dusan Vukotic
--- tgpedersen < tgpedersen@...> wrote:> Or it could have been Sino-Tibetan -> PIE.Yes, ST or an early pre-OC stage. I'm no ST expert.> > Anyway, I wonder what those prefixes meant or what> > their functions were (e.g. in *galakt- and *melg).> >>> I'll get back on that.OK. I'm looking forward to it.> > The Old Chinese -> Indoeuropean direction is> possible,> > of course, but I doubt it was OC -> PIE due to the> > chronology (but I may well be mistaken). We might,> > however, think of the predecessor of Old Chinese> > (which I know little about, unfortunately).>> S(ino-)T(ibetan)See above.> > Also, I wonder what the most common semantic> source of> > milk is. Since, as Miguel pointed out, the> *galakt-> > root is only attested in Greek and Latin, my> > pre-Tocharian suggestion gets weakened a bit.> >> Greek *galakt-, Latin *lact-, Germanic and Slavic> *melk- (note that> Germanic has -k-, which it shouldn't).Hm. That's right. Difficulties with internalreconstruction often indicate borrowing, indeed.> > I'm not sure what semantic shifts could lead to> > "milk", but let's consider the following> expressions,> > more or less connected to the concept of "milk",> from> > languages that did have linguistic contacts with> > Indoeuropean languages, as well as, perhaps, PIE> > itself:> >> > Kartvelian comparanda:> >> > PKartvelian *.qwel- "cheese"> > PKartvelian *lok.- "to lick"> > PKartvelian *loq.- "insipid, sweet">> > Uralic comparanda:> >> > Saam (Lapp): lak'ca^ -âvc- (N) "cream; thick sour> > cream" (a loan? from where?)>> Arabic has a root for "lick" something like l-s^-,> OC something like> *lVk- (by memory). But maybe it's not surprising> there's an /l/ in> words for "tonge" and "lick".Yes. They seem to be onomatopoeic. Physiology-induced:)> > I'm not claiming anything at this point. The> > expressions above may well be ordinary> look-alikes.>> It does look a bit suspicious.It really does.Best,Petr___________________________________________________________To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.comYahoo! Groups Links< *> To visit your group on the web, go to:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/< *> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:cybalist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com< *> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Yahoo! Acesso Grátis
Internet rápida e grátis. Instale o discador agora!