From: fournet.arnaud
Message: 50275
Date: 2007-10-12
----- Original Message -----From: C. Darwin GoransonSent: Friday, October 12, 2007 8:04 PMSubject: [Courrier indésirable] [tied] Re: Ur- = water and Skur- = shower--- In cybalist@... s.com, "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@ ...>
wrote:
>
> No, basque ur "water" is absolutely not cognate with
> > IE.
> >
> > Michel
>
> ============ ========= =
> Basque -r- is definitely from -t?-
> which is PIE equivalent to *d.
>
> these words are cognates.
>
> ============ =======
Actually, it's probable Michael is right.===============
A.F
You are free to consider who and who is right.
So am I.
I consider that Basque ur "water" is definitely cognate to PIE *w_d < *ut?
And Basque hor-tz "tooth" cognate to PIE H1_d "tooth" < H_t?
And Basque haritz "oak" cognate to Gaulish cassanos < PIE *k_d-s°nos "oak" and Greek "ked-ros" < k_t?
And so on.
You failed to provide any shadow of an argument or data
that might suggest I am wrong to think these words are cognate.
"""Actually""", it is obvious I am right and you have nothing in your pockets,
but shallow certainties. Are you a colleague to Mr. Ryan ?
If you have any substantiated counter-arguments, put them on the table.
======================
You see, Fournet,
=========
A.F
Right.
This is my family name, I happened to have a Latin Patronym,
Even though 99% of my ancestors are either Norse, Frankish or Gaulish.
===================
the two
words we're dealing with, Basque "ur" and PIE *wodr , have a major
barrier in being able make a comaprison: the Basque word is only two
phonological segments long. This makes it easy to compare it with a
LOT of different roots, since it's not hard to manipulate.
=============A.F
What about the other words ?
How many words do you need ?
Let's put it simple : I believe Historical Linguistics is a course on the inexistence of random as a possible explanation.
And your reconstruction of PIE "water" *wotr is superficial, to remain polite.
I would rate this *wotr as shamelessly ridiculous.
Maybe infantile is the most charitable word.
How long have you been trying to be a Comparatist in PIE field ?
=============================
This kind of false relation is common cross-linguisticall y, and is a
dangerous pitfall in linguistic reconstructions.================
A.F
I know what I am doing.
I do not need that kind of dumb restatements of obvious advice.
===================
Why am I so sure of the Basque word not being borrowed?=============
A.F
Right, not borrowed.
At last, a useful positive statement.
======================
Basque is a conservative language, enough so that the word for "hammer" still has the root for "stone" inside it - a Palaeolithic/ Mesolithic/ Neolithic
carry-over.==========
A.F
I NEVER wrote or suggested Basque was not conservative.
and I NEVER wrote or suggested Basque ur is a loanword.
Basque ur "water" is cognate, not borrowed.
I thought my point of view was obvious : To be more explicit : COGNATE.
You mention a word for "hammer" but you did not give it.
So you are kindly (but firmly) requested to.
==========================
Moreover - and as a point, more solid - words for basic
concepts are the least likely to change. Water, i.e. H2O, exists in
every culture of the world.==============
A.F
Yes. I agree. Water looks more solid than your brain.
And "least likely" is nothing but "I want it to be true" B.S. propaganda.
======================
The words for it may differ, but there is
always a word that means "water". Why would a language that's still
very much alive borrow a word for such a basic concept ?
I admit that Basque has borrowed many words from IE languages, but it
seems unlikely that it would borrow a word so basic as "water". If you
think otherwise, please explain this: where's the impetus for
borrowing this word in particular?===========
A.F
See the preceding paragraph.
Generally speaking, I do not believe there is any reason why any word should not be borrowed. I do not believe in the "stable basic vocabulary" B.S.
=============