<snip>
============ =
If we allow that Sumerian is related, then Sumerian bul,
bul-4, and bul-5, 'inflate', indicate that the vowel which became PIE
*A in this word was earlier *o/*u. That is why, among other reasons, I
reconstruct *PHO-NHA as a preceding form: *po/ul.
============
A.F
I definitely disagree.
PIE polu has *o because it is basically built like a
past participle.
Other PIE forms are vowelless : *pl-
PAA has -i- in Arabic and Egyptian *a in
Touareg.
***
Fournet:
I wrote the _PIE_ form was *pAl-, which yields *pol(- u-) and
*pl-.
The vowel of the pre-PIE form *po/ul has NOTHING TO DO WITH
*polu-.
Arabic has NO vowel; roots are triconsonantal.
Touareg is NOT Egyptian.
PCR
***
I would suggest that Sumerian inflate bul has more to
do with root *puH-
to blow, to breathe. And it is a verb not an
adjective.
***
It is for this reason that I reconstructed a "skin bag
being inflated/becoming full".
PCR
***
============ =======
If we are willing to expand our sights to PIE *(s)p(h)el-, 'split,
split off, tear off', we can compare Sumerian pe-el (for pi+il(i)-5 =
*pil), 'dig, excavate'. If this is valid, it tells us that the form
preceding *(s)p(h)el- was *PHFE-NHA: *pe/il-.
With this latter, we can compare Arabic falaHa, 'cultivate, till'.
With the former, Arabic ?aflaHa, 'prosperous' .
========
A.F
I have previously refuted this assertion.
One basic rule of etymology is that the best
explanations are synchronic,
The meaning "prosperous, successful" is a metaphoric
use of the verb "to cut"
As in "break-thru" from "break". Here Arabic uses
"cut" instead of "break" to express "success". To cultivate is cut the
earth.
None of these words has anything to do with *p_l
"full".
***
Correction: you have previously asserted this refutation.
I believe your synchronic explanation is totally without merit.
PCR
***
============
<snip>
There are a number of prefixes like ?a- that can be added to Arabic
verbs to produce various nuances of the basic verbal idea but note:
these are added to triliterals. ?a to f-l-H.
============ ======
A.F
This is the Form IV of Arab grammarians.
Very often it does not change the meaning, but
transitivity.
It can be further expanded as form XII
Your last statement : **added to tri-literals* *
is false :
zaqq : to jump = ?azaq (z_q : 2)
aqlawla : to fly in the air very high : Form XII (q_l
: 2)
Apart from a good dictionary of Arabic, I warmly
recommend you also get a good grammar.
***
z-q-q is a triliteral (geminate): Form IV would be
?azqaqa.
Do you dispute this?
PCR
***
============ ==
Your idea that prefixes can be added to biliterals, which hardly exist
in Arabic, such as H-, r-, ?a to f-l. which preserves its meaning of
'fill/full' is totally contrary to established theory.
=======
A.F
This is not "my idea"
although I adhere to this approach
I give you again the relevant source.
The three books on the left describe the
theory.
***
If you are not prepared to present arguments for this
"theory", no one on this list will give it the slightest credence, I
think.
PCR
***
============ ========= ==
And, in the case of these 'derivatives' , you have so far been
unable to substantiate the meanings that Kazimirski assigned them.
===========
<snip>
I keep asking where you obtained Egyptian "Hipulil". It is a figment of
someone's imagination.
==========
A.F
First time you asked.
So answer is : From M. Georges Roquet : a specialist
of Coptic and Egyptian
who works on the reconstruction of Old
Egyptian.
Serious work.
I think he will probably publish his reconstructions
in two or three years.
=
***
If he publishes a book with Hipulil in it, I doubt there will be a
second publication.
Egyptian words are without indicated vowel: does Roquet perhaps mean
Hfn?
PCR
***
