Re: Meaning of Aryan: now, "white people"?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Francesco Brighenti" <frabrig@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 7:33 PM
Subject: [tied] Re: Meaning of Aryan: now, "white people"?




--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
wrote:

> Francesco... I am going to correct the numerous misrepresentations
> about me in your posting above.
>
> As for the guilty word, PL *HHA-RA, 'water-color', 'pale/white',
> as YOU pointed out Bomhard identified it for PA as *hhar-
> 'white', I guess he does not see that the primary meaning
> was 'pale'; and HE connects it with PIE *ar-.

Bomhard's Proto-Afroasiatic root **Har-/*H@... is given the
meaning 'to be superior, to be higher in status or rank, to be above
or over', *not* the meaning 'white'! Read again his entry for Proto-
Nostratic *Har-/*H@... at

http://tinyurl.com/252gt5

***

I stand corrected on this point. I have not read Bomhard for a while. And I
did not remember properly what you wrote.

I appreciate the GOOGLE Book Search trick for accessing information in his
book. I have a copy of it but GOOGLE is so much more convenient.

Now, my first comment is that there is no justification for proposing a
variable root vowel (as Bomhard does for *Har-/*H&r-) except to open the
door for further perhaps illegitimate connections. It is a fundamentally
wrong approach. And to extend this misbegotten principle to PS as he also
does, and _change_ it to *Har-/*Hur in order to make an apparent connection
with Arabic Hurr-, 'free', is scholarly slipshod (at best).

The second problem is that Egyptian <H> does not correspond to PA <*H> and
PIE *ø but rather to PIE *g(^)h- and *k(^)h. Egyptian eliminated voicing
contrasts far before Coptic. For 'high/superior', the idea is seen in PIE
*k^(h)er-, 'summit' = Egyptian <Hr>.

Egyptian <Hr>, 'face', on the other hand, corresponds to PIE 3. *g^her-.

***


> Even Orel & Stolbova have it as HS (PA) root #1241, *hhar-, 'sky'.

The sky is not white. But it can be identified with the idea
of 'superiority, being higher, being above' (see Bomhard, above).

***

This is a highly subjective pronouncement. A normal sky can certainly be
characterized as 'pale/bluish white'. It can, of course, also be related to
'highness'.

***

> So it is not true that I did not point out the obvious
> connections; the only connection I did not point out was
> Proto-Language *HHA-RA, from which I believe Nostratic *hhar-
> is derived.

This is the point! Proto-Language *HHA-RA, lit. 'water-(foam)color'
(i.e. 'pale/white') is an ARTIFICIAL CONSTRUCT OF YOUR OWN built on
two supposed (by yourself only) "Proto-Language monosyllabes":

***

And what do you think Nostratic *Har- or PS *Har- or PA *Har- is? They are
artificial constructs based on theoretical lower level building blocks.

Do you object to "YOUR OWN"? What if I objected a priori to Pokorny's own,
or Ore & Stolbova's own?

The monosyllables I have reconstructed were built on analyses of existing
reconstructions not imagined "on a winter's day". No different process than
at the lower levels just more difficult.

***

***

1) *HHA = water current ('what moves himself underneath'), lake,
move in place, be agitated, flow, shine/y, reflective, bluish-white,
deep;

2) *RA = a formant which was used for color terms.

The fact is, that you don't arrive at this root via a legitimate
linguistic reconstruction. The proof of what I am saying is that you
are forced to disagree with the completely different meaning
assigned by Bomhard to a phonetically similar Proto-Nostratic root,
*Har-/*H@..., whose reconstruction, unlike that of your *HAR_RA, is
at least based on a pair of (more or less legitimate) reconstructed
Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Afroasiatic roots. Yet Bomhard starts
from existing words and meanings, while you start from an invention.
This being the state of things, why should we accept your
fanciful 'white/pale' meaning, which isn't vouched by any existing
word in Nostratic?

***

I have already told you, perhaps you did not see it, that Pokorny mentions a
root *ar- for *ar(e)g^-, 'whitish', which only makes sense since PIE roots
are *CVC (*Ha(:)r); and for Egyptian, is <j3q.t>, 'leeks', white enough for
you?


Patrick

***
Regards,
Francesco