Re: Ur- = water and Skur- = shower

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "fournet.arnaud"
<fournet.arnaud@...> wrote:

>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: C. Darwin Goranson
> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 8:04 PM
> Subject: [Courrier indésirable] [tied] Re: Ur- = water and Skur-

= shower

>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.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 could not agree more - it is good to disagree, since that provokes
discussion, and through discussion ideas are traded. This trading of
ideas can help fix errors (as my claim of the Basque "hammer", which
should be "axe" instead!), and can clarify exactly what in particular
is being contested.

> 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.

>
> ======================

I'm afraid I've never met Mr. Ryan in person. I simply noticed this
thread, and wished to express my views on the matter.

I admit that the way I expressed myself was not the strongest.
However, just because my words are not convincing, it doesn't assure
yours of being correct. A weak argument is not a wrong argument.
As per my pockets, I usually keep my house-keys and wallet in them,
and last time I checked, they were free from shallow certainties.
Thanks for your interest in them, though!

>> 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.

> ===================

Please excuse me, I looked at your login-name and made a
misassumption.

>> ...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.

What I'm trying to say is that there are cases where words can have
similar sounds and similar meanings, but not actually be related!
Take, for example, a famous example of the word for "dog" in an
Australian Aboriginal language (Mbabaram): "dog". Now, it's known
that this word wasn't borrowed from English. How, then, could a
language halfway across the world from where English was first spoken
have an identical word for the animal "Canis lupus familiaris"?
Pure linguistic chance.

> 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 ?

Oh, five years now. I'm still young, but this is a field that
fascinates me.
Regarding the "shamelessly ridiculous" and "infantile" reconstruction
of *wotr, I would tend to agree, since the commonly accepted form of
the word is *wodr - although *wotr is the version accepted by the
Glottalic school.
But the reconstruction of the form *wodr is based on real words: Old
Irish "uisce", English "water", Lithuanian "vanduo~", Old Church
Slavonic "voda", Greek "hudo:r" (the colon here denotes vowel
length), Hittite "wa:tar". In fact, the *d varies in the genitive
case with an *n, as is seen in the Hittite "witenas", the genetive
of "wa:tar", and in some languages the form with an *n has become the
standard form, such as in Latin "unda" (wave) and Sanskrit "udan"
(water).
Especially looking at the equivalence on the English, Old Church
Slavonic, Greek and Hittite forms of the word, surely you must see a
striking similarity in form! All the moreso when it's noted that the
Greek "h" could come from "w" (or "s").

>> This kind of false relation is common cross-linguistically, 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.
>
> ===================

Dumb restatements, you say? Socrates once said (to
transliterate) "kai dis gar toi kai tris phasi kalo einai ta kala
legein". This is roughly translated as "It is a fine thing, they say,
to fine things over and over again."

> 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.
>

Again, as Socrates said, "It is a fine thing, they say, to fine
things over and over again." You have done so here in reiterating the
point.
I must admit my error in claiming the relation of the word
for "hammer" to the word for "stone" in Basque. The correct
comparison is of "rock" to "axe":

rock: haitz (the "h" is often dropped)
axe: aizkora

The "tz" against "z" is likely due to reanalysis.

Also worth looking into is the word "haitzulo(ko)" (cave). I've
looked, and not found any word like "ulo" or "uloko", so this is a
clear derivative of "haitz".

> 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.

Sad to say, I'm not Alex Mack. Only she has the power to melt into
liquid whenever she wishes. But I forgive you, since I made a similar
mistake with your name, Mr. Fournet.

> ===========
>
> A.F
>
> 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.

If it were true that any word could be borrowed, then how is it that
the Indo-European pronouns and such are so similar?
Look, oh friend, at the attestation of words such
as "I", "you", "we", "this", and the ridiculous and infantile (in
your words) "water" - all 12 IE groups attest the same roots:
*h1eg^ , *tuh? (uncertain laryngeal), *wei , *so and *wodr ,
respectively.