From: m6
Message: 45817
Date: 2006-08-24
> On 2006-08-22 21:43, m6 wrote: (edit)
> > 1) sae-, 2)wel ...
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
> 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'!).
i see - this would explain the eventual sae+'n', in that it did not
modify the original meaning of 'sun'?
> 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 --
that which pleases or gives pleasure?
>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.
this is what i find so fascinating/frustrating!
the 's' was lost from 'sah' in some instances - as in Welsh 'heul',
but the 's' forms are the earliest for IE?
thank you,
ric kemp