Re: PIE-Arabic Correspondences (was Brugmann's Law)

From: Richard Wordingham
Message: 51516
Date: 2008-01-20

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
wrote:

> fournet.arnaud wrote:
>> I will add :
>> sekw "to follow" = Arabic *saq

> In the latest communication, the word now appears as "sâq", with
the circumflex indicating a long <a>.

I agree that it would have been much better to make the identity of
the words obvious from the outset.

> Thus, the verbal root is thus not s-q as suggested by "saq" (to
correspond with *sekW-) _but_ s-w-q, which is obviously not a match
for *sekW.

Except that Semitic did form triliterals from biliterals by inserting
a weak consonant as the second consonant - s-w-q even looks rather
appropriate. We do have a minor voicing problem, though. A biliteral
sq should correspond to *seg, *seg^ or *segW.

> The dictionary I am using by Lane is the premier standard for
Arabic dictionaries in English, and obviously, has an entry for sâqa
(s-w-q), meaning 'to drive'. This is the word from which suq, the Arab
market, is derived.
<snip>

The semantics certainly seem to be against the correspondence.

> To wrap up the bundle in a neat ribbon, s-w-q is probably
cognate with PIE *sweng/k-, which has, among others, the meaning
'beat, cause pain for', which certainly describes a common way of
'driving' herd-animals.

And notice the voicing vagary here. Velars are notorious for
irregular changes in voicing.

<Unnecessary jibes against the French snipped. Irrelevant, as well as
bad manners, given Arnaud's linguistic abilities.>

Richard.