From: Rick McCallister
Message: 52904
Date: 2008-02-12
> At 5:16:27 PM on Tuesday, February 12, 2008, Rick____________________________________________________________________________________
> McCallister wrote:
>
>
> > --- "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...> wrote:
>
> >> At 4:26:34 PM on Tuesday, February 12, 2008, Rick
> >> McCallister wrote:
>
> >>> I remember seeing, years ago, a claim that rise,
> raise
> >>> and rear (up) were non IE words, so I'm
> wondering if
> >>> they're related to *ar-
>
> >>> If so, what happened to the *a-? Was the a- of
> arise
> >>> perceived to be a prefix?
>
> >> To the best of my knowledge, the <a-> of <arise>
> *was* a
> >> prefix, originally <ar-> (as found in Northumb.
> >> <arri:san>, according to the OED s.v. <arise>)
> and also
> >> found as <or->, corresponding to Goth. <uz-,
> us->, OHG
> >> <ur-, ir-, ar->, OSax. <or-, ur- a->, and ON
> <ør->.
>
> > So if a- is a prefix here, is it the same as
> German ge-?
>
> No.
>
> > And are rise, raise and rear (up) related to *ar-?
>
> Watkins, at least, takes them all to be from
> *h1erei-s-,
> extended from *h1er- 'to move, set in motion'.
> Specifically:
>
> rise < OE ri:san < PGmc. *ri:san
> rear < OE ræ:ran < PGmc. *raizjan < *rois-yo-
> raise < ON reisa < PGmc. *raizjan
>
> I've lost track of what your *ar- is, I'm afraid;
> the list
> has been diabolically busy.
>
> Brian
>
>
>