Re: Sard

From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 51420
Date: 2008-01-18

There is a great difference between 'a part of the vagina', implying an organ like the clitoris, and 'vaginal part', implying the vagina as a part of the uterus.
 
To connect *ser-, 'sickle ('cut')' with **ser-d- betrays a lamentable lack of Fingerspitzengefühl. 'Coupling' makes perfect sense. In what sense would coition be 'cutting'?
 
I think Melchert has gang astray with this article.
 
Patrick
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 12:05 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Sard

On 2008-01-18 18:28, Patrick Ryan wrote:

> I have great difficulty seeing the term mean 'penis inside the vagina'.

There's no problem with that. In fact, it makes perfect sense. The
article mentions evidence that in both Indian and European medical
tradition the "portio vaginalis" was often regarded as a penis-like
organ concealed inside the vagina.

> The proposed connection with *ser-p- is totally unwarranted, and poor
> semantics, IMHO. There is also a *ser- that means simply 'creep', which
> corresponds to Egyptian z3, 'betake one's self, maggot (for caterpillar? )'.

What Melchert means is not *serp- 'creep' but rather *serp- 'cut', as in
Gk. hárpe: and Slavic *sIrpU 'sickle'. He also mentions Lat. serra 'saw'
(< *ser-s-) and a few more roots of this kind.

Piotr