From: C. Darwin Goranson
Message: 47636
Date: 2007-02-27
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Joao S. Lopes" <josimo70@...>
> > wrote:
> > > Akin to Armenian harc^ "concubine", Old Irish airech "idem",
> > Avestan pairika "prostitute, witch" ?
> > >
> > > tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> escreveu:
> > > Saul Levin:
> > > Semitic and Indo-European: The principal Etymologies
> > > mentions an IE loan in Hebrew: 'pi(y)l´eGes^' "concubine".
> > > Philistine (< Pelasgian) ?
> > >
> >
> > I wasn't aware of those words. The question is whether they are
> > compatible with the way Levin analysed it: preposition/preverb
*pi-
> > (cf Hittite) or *bhi, + the verbal stem *legh- "lie" (found in
all
> > IE except IndoAryan, plus in Kartvelian), in other words "lying
> > with" (sby.). Cf. German Beischlaf "coitus". A loan IE > Semitic
>
> > IE ?
>
> And Latin paelex, pel(l)ex, pelica, Gr. pállax, pallaké:, (all
> Ernout-Meillet, who suggests Etruscan intermediary role). Not that
the
> direction of loan gets any clearer.
>
>
> Torsten
>