Re: PIE-Arabic Correspondences - *gWel-

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

> Richard Wordingham wrote:

>> I will now give some examples taken from Bomhard's work. The Arabic
>> words given are not isolated within Afroasiatic. Bomhard gives the
>> following examples of PIE *gHW corresponding to Arabic /q/ and

assumed

>> to be reflexes of Nostratic *kW' (spellings normalised):

>> PIE *gWah2dH 'submerge, press in' = Arabic _qah.ama_ 'drag in, cram
>> in', _qah.a.t.a_ 'beat violently', _qah.afa_ 'beat on head',

_qah.aza_

>> 'cudgel'.

> In my opinion, the semantics are clearly not even similar. I do

not know what dictionary Bomhard was using but I see no _qah.at.a_
'beat violently'.

The original meaning is supposed to be 'push in'.

> By my system of correspondences, *gWa(:)dh- should corresponds to

Arabic sh-?/h/h.-d/t. but I can see nothing promising.

>> PIE *gWer 'heavy' = Arabic _waqara_ 'to load, to burden'

> Whether we find an Arabic equivalent or not, the Egyptian

equivalent is transparently sh3w, 'weight', is *gWer-ú-s, 'heavy',
confirming my hypothesis of PIE *gW = Egyptian sh/X.

>
> I am using sh for esh.
>
> Even if waqara were one of those funny roots where wa- has been

added to qara, I would be reluctant to use it because once Pandora's
box has been opened, a rat will qualify as a non-tree-climbing
squirrel for dinner.

> In any case, the root idea seems to be 'bestow on' without regard

to weight or value.

The Arabic noun _wiqr_ is quite clearly assoicated with a load on a
lowly beast of burden. Most of the Semitic cognates seems to be more
abstract, e.g. Hebrew _ya:qar_ 'to be dear, rare, scarce', with
causatives having the meaning 'to honour'. (Cf. Hebrew _ka:be:d_ 'to
be heavy', with causative meaning 'to honour'.) There is an apparent
unprefixed Cushitic cognate with a clear meaning of 'heavy', but that
may be just a case of reaching down into a single Cushitic language.

> With dissimilatory 'deglottalisation', to meet a root constraint, we
> get PIE *kW instead:

>> PIE *kWed 'to smoke, to fume' (Satem only, so Pokorny *ked) = Arabic
>> _miqt.ar_ 'censer', _qut.(u)r_ 'agalloch, aloeswood'. (The earlier
>> attested Semitic languages show the 'smoke, incense' meaning much

more

>> clearly, e.g. Hebreq _qi:t.o:r_ 'smoke')

> There is no *kWed-, 'smoke', in Pokorny that I can find; and no

mention of satem only under *ked-.

I missed Greek _kedros_ 'cedar', _kedris_ 'juniper'. How are these
words supposed to be related to a root meaning 'smoke'? Without these
words, there is no IE evidence to distinguish between PIE *ked and PIE
*kWed. The evidence for labialisation seems to be the vocalism of
Arabic _k.ut.(u)r_ and Akkadian _k.utru_ 'smoke'.

>> PIE *kWed 'to sharpen, to bore' = Arabic _qat.a`a_, _qat.ama_,
>> _qat.ala_ 'to cut off'.

> This appears to be Egyptian sh-t, 'assessment'. Arabic in

shat.ara, 'divide'.

> If we suppose a *(n)kedW-, 'cut', as the basis of an s-mobile form

*(s)k(h)ed-, 'split off', we may have a cognate with q-t. but there
are other competing roots for this connection.

Bomhard offers Egyptian _qdf_ 'to gather flowers' and Coptic ko:tf 'to
gather (grain, fruit, wood etc.)'.

Richard.