--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> On 2008-02-10 22:57, fournet.arnaud wrote:
>
> >
> > PIE *urughyo- is _not_ a PIE root!
> > PR
> > ============
> > Pokorny : p. 1183
> > It is a PIE Root *wrugh
> > Variant form wrigh- (Thrakian)
>
> *wrugHjo- is a ghost root. All that is warranted by Germanic and
> Balto-Slavic is *rugHi- ~ *rugHjo-. Germanic, in particular, shows
> no evidence of *wr-, which is a strong argument against an initial
> *w in this root. Thrac. (?) briza is a poor match and one can't
> simply _assume_ that it's a cognate of *rugHjo- just because it may
> mean 'rye'. How can you rule out the possibility that the initial
> <b-> reflects *bH, or that the <-z-> comes something entirely
> different from *-gHj-? Even a connection with *bHr.h1g^-o- 'white'
> is formally more plausible.
Or maybe
(from
http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/reviews/hock.html )
"
In some cases, a Munda etymology is supported by archaeological
evidence. Rice cultivation was developed in Southeast Asia, land of
origin of the Austro-Asiatic people, who brought it to the Indus
region by the late Harappan age. Therefore, it is not far-fetched to
derive Sanskrit vrihi from proto-Munda *vari, which exists in
practically the same form in Austronesian languages like Malagasy and
Dayak, and reappears even in Japanese (uru-chi), again pointing to
Southeast-Asia as the origin and propagator in all directions of the
both the cultivation of rice and its name *vari. With para-Munda
prefix, this may also be the origin of the Hindi word câ-val, "rice".
"
http://www.ejvs.laurasianacademy.com/ejvs0501/ejvs0501b.txt
"
In this fashion, that is through the mediation of the Dravida in
Sindh, Drav. *variJci 'rice' must have reached Iran (> M.Pers. brinj),
that is not, as otherwise common, via the northwestern Khaiber Pass,
as in this region another form of the word is found, with *vrijhi >
Pashto wrizE, etc
"
and
"
Rice
The word for 'rice' shows a difference between a Northern form,
approximately **(@)Ë@..., versus a southern one, *vari, (v)ariki,
variJci. Note that this indicates the same difference in tenuis/media
as met with in the word for 'plough':
N. *laGgal, *v@... :: S. *naGkal, *variJci/variki.
Still another form exists in Proto-Munda *@-rig; it has provided
Dravidian *(v)ari, variki > Tam. arici, ari, Kan. akki (DEDR 215), and
also Tam., Tel. vari (DEDR 6565).
Though rice is indigenous to S. Asia, the domesticated version can be
traced back to S.E. Asia and S. China. (fn. 6) It has been found in
India since the 3rd millennium BCE (Glover & Higham 1996, Kajale
1991), and appeared late in the southern Indus civilization, at Pirak
c. 1700 BCE. However, it appears first (as vrIhi) only in post-RV
texts (AV, c. 1200 BCE), though it probably was an ingredient in the
RV offerings puroDAza 'rice cake' and odana 'rice gruel'. The older IA
grain is only yava 'barley', but later on we have 7 or 10 agricultural
products: in the yajurveda saMhitAs, the 'seven agricultural plants'
(sapta' grAmyA' o'SadhayaH); ZB 14,9,3,22 has even ten: vrIhi' Oryza
sativa L.; ya'va Hordeum vulgare L. subsp. hexastichum (L.) Schinz et
Kell.; ti'la Sesamum indicum L.; mù'Sa Phaseolus mungo L. var.
radiatus = Phaseolus Roxburghii; a'Nu Panicum miliaceum L.; priya'Ggu
Setaria italica (L.) Pal. Beauv. = Panicum italicum L.; godhU'ma
Triticum aestivum = Triticum sativum Lam.;
masU'ra Lens culinaris Medic. = Ervum lens L.; kha'lva Phaseolus
radiatus L. a variety of Phaseolus mungo L. = mASa(?); khala'-kula
Dolichos biflorus L. (W. Rau, in: Witzel 1997: 203-206).
Southworth (1979, 1988: 659-660) supposes an Elamo-Dravid. origin:
*var 'seed, grain', Elam. bar 'seed', PDrav (stage 1, c. 2000 BCE)
*vari 'rice grain'. (McAlpin 1981, Tyler 1968, Southworth 1988).
Achaemenid Elam. umi 'grind (grain)', *um 'to process grain', PDrav1
*um 'husk, chaff' DEDR 637; (this should be compared with *gant-um-a,
gandh-um-a!). However, the Elamo-Drav. family has not been proven to
the satisfaction of Dravidianists (McAlpin (et al.) 1975, Krishnamurti
1985, Zvelebil 1985), and the N. Drav. language Brahui, seen as a link
by McAlpin, is a late-comer to Baluchistan (Elfenbein 1987).
Southworth (1988: 664) stresses the difference between northern
(Gangetic) and southern rice, which might have been dry land rice.
On the other hand, Southworth later on mentions that PDrav
*(v)ariki DEDR 215, has been taken over from PMunda at c. 1500 BCE:
*@rig 'millet, Panicum militare' (Zide & Zide 1973: 8) --> *arik(i)
'staple grain' (Southworth 1988: 660), because the South Drav. sound
change k > c took place only between the second and third stage of
Drav. (Krishnamurti 1969); thus: Munda *@rig --> Drav. *(v)ariki >
Tamil ari, arici. This South Dravidian form arici has been transmitted
westwards, probably by sea trade, Greek o'ryza, o'ryzon and Arab. ruz,
Engl. rice etc. (Southworth 1979: 202, cf. EWA II 598).
Southworth also reconstructs PDrav. *vari, *variJci DEDR 5265.
This, too, was transmitted westwards, but via the Baluchistan-BampUr
trail, to Old Iranian as *brinj, M.Iran. brinj, N.Pers. birinj). It
must have been this form that was the basis of the word in the late
Southern Indus civilization.
The northern track westwards is attested by Ved. vrIhi < pre-IA
*vrijhi- and reflected in the E. Iran. (and N. Iran.?) languages:
Pastho wriZE, (but Khotan. rrIysua [rIzua]!), Nuristani wrI.c, rI.c
(cf. Fussman 1972).
The Northern Indus dialect had *vrij > Ved. *vrijhi > vrIhi,
Nuristani wrI.c., Pashto wriZE. The Southern dialect is indicated by
M.Pers. brinj, N.Pers. birinj, going back to *v@..., Dravidian
*variJci, a form with "infixed" -n-, found in central Dravidian: Gondi
wanjI (Pengo verci(l), Gadba vasil, DEDR 5265). The form with -n-
points to Munda origin and to a relatively far-reaching influence or
expansion of the Munda in this early period (cf. Kuiper 1955: 140,
1962: 14, 51, 1991: 39f.) Again, this distribution also suggests a
difference between, on the one hand, northern or north-western form,
including the northern Indus language, and on the other, the southern
Indus language and the rest of the subcontinent.
However, these forms have to be reconciled with Tibetan 'bras
[@bras] > mod. Tib. [je], Purik bras, with the neighboring,
linguistically isolated Burushaski bras (Kuiper 1962: 40, 1955: 143 n.
17, Tikkanen, 1988: 303-325), Dumaki bras, and even with some
Austronesian forms such as Malay b@...> Somali bari`s?; cf.,
however, Dayak bari, Malegasy vare, vari --> Bantu wari, wali (Nurse
1983, Southworth 1988: 664, Witzel 1995) and O.Jpn. uru-shine, (cf.
mod. Jpn. uru-chi < *uru-ti). Both bras and pre-Vedic *vrijhi must go
back to a source such as **@w@... (Witzel 1997).
In the study of the Asian words for 'rice' we have to take into
account words from S., S.E. and E.Asia:
- S. Asia: Ved. vrIhi < *vrijhi,
Burushaski bras, (fn. 7) Tib. 'bras, (fn. 8)
Drav. *arici, *variJci; (fn. 9)
Munda *@-rig,
Tib.-Burm. *dza- (fn. 10) < Austr. *Cs amaq
Kusunda cusum 'rice in husks', kAdiyun 'cleaned rice'
- S.E. Asia: Munda *rung-kug (Zide & Zide 1973: 17)
Austr. *Csamaq
Austrones. *pajay;
Austrones. *i-may
Thai *xau > khaw (Haudricourt, in Shafer 1966-7: 522)
Austro-Thai *kru-may (> Jpn. kome)
- E. Asia: Chin. *mi@..., Tib.-Burm. *may (fn. 11)
The distribution of the various words for 'rice' points to an old
(South-)East Asian word of culture. Just as in the modern spread of
the E. Asian word 'tea', several routes of distribution have to be
distinguished:
1. an approximate reconstruction of the S.(E.) Asian word
*@vrij(h)i/*@bras, probably < **@w@..., (fn. 12) which is spread out
in a wide arch between
2. E. Asian *may, *xau, *krumay (< *kru-*may?) ((fn. 13) and
3. S. Asian *@-rig, (fn. 14) *rung-ku(g).
PMunda *rung-ku(g) (Zide & Zide 1973: 17, *(r)-(n)-ku, Kuiper 1962)
may be an Austro-Asiatic form with prefix r-. This might be connected,
via metathesis, with Benedict's Austro-Thai-Japanese *krumay (> Jpn.
kome, kuma-shine), a word that may be composed, if Sino-Tib. (Benedict
1972: no. 65, 128, 149, 192, 193) *may, Austrones. i-may and Thai *xau
are compared, of *kru-*may. In the end, one may think of a Proto-form
**kru as the ultimate source for 'rice' in S.E. and E. Asia
(Sino-Tib., Austro-As., Austro-Thai).
...
(12) Benedict 1990: 43 reconstructs Proto-W.-Malayo-Polynes.
(Hesperonesian) *pajay (Mal. padi, Jav. pari, cf. the Engl. loan
paddy; however he also has (1990: 77) Proto-Austrones. *pagr[@]y, that
differs from the S. Asian/Central Asian cluster *vrjhi/bras by a
transposed(?) -r-, (perhaps: Austric **w¾-r@... / *pa-Cj/gr@... >
*pagr@..., *pajay??).
(13) Benedict 1990 assumes Proto-Austro-Thai *krumay, whence Jpn.
kome, kuma(-shine). In connection with the Tib.-Burm. and Sinitic
forms (*mi, may, Benedict 1972) a compound **kru + **may may be
construed. The proto-form **kru seems to be the source for the words
for 'rice' in Sino-Tibetan, Austro-Asiatic and Austro-Thai (including
Austronesian).
(14) The Austro-Asiat. words still are very close to those in
Austro-Thai: PMunda *runG-ku(g/b) < Austro-As. *@rig, 'millet,
Panicum militare'. Pinnow 1959: 96 $ 139 derives *ruG from Kharia
DuruG 'to pound rice' etc. (p. 92 $ 116), and -ku(b) from Sant. hoRo,
Mundari huRu etc. (p.122 $244), cf. also Kharia kho~sRo~ pe etc. (p.
171 $ 370). -- In Munda there is, next to Kharia romkub, also Juang
ru(n)kU, Sora ruGkU-n, Bondo/Remo, Parengi ruGku, Gutob rukU (Pinnow
1959: 96), and in eastern Austro-As.: Khasi khau, Mon unko, Khmer
oGkor; - Thai khAu may be a loan word from Austro-As.? Further:
Palaung ra-kO, Kuoi aGkau, Sue raGkao, Palaung ra-kO, Palaung-wa unko,
Sakai: Krau (Ketiar) uG-kuok, Sakai also: c@... 'husked rice', Krau
(Kuala Tembeling) r@-kua etc. (Pinnow 1959: 96, Kuiper 1962: 51f.).
The variation in Austro-As., already observed by Kuiper, points to a
proto-form *(r)(n)-k(h)u. - Thus, Dhimal (= Tib.-Burm. Kiranti,
eastern Himalaya) UnkhU 'rice', according to Kuiper < Munda *runku.
"
Torsten