From: Rick McCallister
Message: 52614
Date: 2008-02-11
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowskihttp://www.ejvs.laurasianacademy.com/ejvs0501/ejvs0501b.txt
> <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".
> "
>
>
> "=== message truncated ===
> 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,
>