From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 52061
Date: 2008-01-29
----- Original Message -----
From: "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 3:08 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Limitations of the compartive method
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mate Kapović" <mkapovic@...>
> To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 10:59 AM
> Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Limitations of the compartive method
<snip>
> Let's take an example : words for gold
> PIE word : H2aHw-s
> kept in LAtin aurum
> CEntral PIE innovation : ghel-to
> from the root *ghel "yellow".
>
> If the word aurum were isolated,
> it would have been discarded.
> But the fact is this word exists in Hebrew :
> zahab "gold"
> Structurally zahab is H2_H2_w
> I make you aware that Lithuanian au-k-sis
> with its strange -k- keeps trace of -h- in zahab
> zahab > *HaHw > metathesis HawH-si > aw-K-si.
<snip>
> Arnaud
***
The better reconstruction for Latin aurum, 'gold', is *Ha(:)w(e)s-,
'illuminate', the color associated with _golden_ dawn as Pokorny so
correctly has it.
To abstract "H2_H2_w" from zahab (what is with the Hebrew? Arabic has kept
it all together much more smartly) is unbelievably bizarre and
incontrovertibly unjustifed.
Pray tell where a table of correspondences enabling anything like what was
reconstructed is published. I will buy one because it certainly will be
rare.
Patrick
***