On 2006-08-22 21:43, m6 wrote:
> i am a layman, but in looking at all these archaic IE forms for sun,
> i wonder if there is a case for separating the *sae'wel into its
> component parts
>
> 1) sae-, 2)wel
>
> the second component is a root, but what of the first?
The second component is not a root but a derivational suffix, or at
least looks like one of the familiar suffixes that form neuter nouns
from verbs (and it has nothing to do with the _root_ *wel- 'turn'!). If
this identification is correct, the first part, *sah2-, should be a verb
root. There is a PIE *sah2- meaning aproximately 'sate, satisfy' (hence,
e.g., Lat. satis and Eng. sad, which originally meant 'weary, sated'),
but this can hardly be the base of the 'sun' word, since it's hard to
imagine that the sun should have been called 'satisfaction', 'satiety'
or the like -- unless the meaning of *sah2- was once more general than
we imagine on the basis of the preserved reflexes, e.g. something like
'grant, give liberally', in which case a semantic connection with the
sun as the provider of light, life, etc. could perhaps be established.
Here, however, I'm treading close to the quicksand of arbitrary
speculation. Some words are just etymologically opaque because all their
relatives have been lost.
Piotr