Re: Brugmann's Law

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
wrote:

>
> On 2008-01-18 00:39, ualarauans wrote:
>
> > Makovsky in his Sravnitel'nyj slovar' mifologic^eskoj simvoliki v
> > indoevropejskix jazykax (1996) reconstructs for the "basic

formula"

> > _j**b tvoju mat'_ the original meaning "be thou cursed with [my]
> > word/hand" (pp. 188-201, s.v. kliatva). I'm not sure if that

makes

> > sense. Opinions?
>
> Now, this _is_ weird. Why not take the phrase at face value?

If I understand him right, Makovsky argues that mat' had originally
nothing to do with "mother" but with mat "speech", "voice" (cf.
_kric^at' blagim matom_ "to shout at the top of one's voice") < PIE
*mat- "word" (> Go. maþljan, inter alia). So the structure was smth
like this: j**b ("to perform a sacral action", "to curse/bless") +
tvoju (oblique pron. 2nd pers. sg.) + mat' ("word" instr.). Later,
the phrase has been reformed step-by-step to the present state.

The interpretation is very arbitrary, I'd say.