From: Rick McCallister
Message: 52110
Date: 2008-01-30
> If the PIE's had wanted to characterize 'gold' as____________________________________________________________________________________
> the 'piece smelted', they
> could have used *t(h)aHw-.
>
> Instead, they used *Hawes-, 'dawn(-colored thing)'
> and *g^hel-dh-,
> 'shiny-nugget'.
>
> The Egyptians called it the 'melt-place=kiln' ->
> 'fiercely desired' but used
> a different root: n(w)b (PIE *leubh-).
>
> Patrick
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
> To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 3:05 AM
> Subject: Re: [Courrier indésirable] Re: [tied] Re:
> Limitations of the
> comparative method
>
>
> You may believe if you choose that xrusos comes from
> Hebrew Harûz but I
> prefer to believe that it is a unique derivation
> from PIE *ghre:u-(**s-).
> Why would the Greeks need to borrow a word for
> 'gold'?
>
> Do you have access to the argumentation supporting
> it as a loan?
>
> ============
> According to a friend of mine, who is an
> archeologist,
> no metal can be very ancient,
> including gold.
> So it's not impossible that most of these words are
> loanwords
> including my *H_H_w-s.
> especially in view of Arabic dhahb < *dahb.
> H2 out of *d is not possible.
> It requires an already evolved form
> *dahb
> then
> *dhahb
> then
> *zahb
> loanword
> HaHw-
>
> Arnaud
>
>