Re: PIE -*C-presents

----- Original Message -----
From: "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 5:34 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: PIE -*C-presents


> On 2008-02-20 00:10, Patrick Ryan wrote:
>
> > I think "without no evidence, there is no case" is going a bit far.
>
> Try saying that in a courtroom ;)
>
> > As 'evidence', I can point to an overwhelming number of roots of
> > *CVC(V) form. Is that the limit for a root? I believe it is, you do
> > not.
>
> Because I can see many more complex roots (*CCVC, *CVCC-, *CCVCC-) with
> my own eyes. Pretending that they don't exist doesn't make them disappear.
>
> > As a second bit of 'evidence, failure to identify an *aw- root with a
> > related meaning certainly is of interest.
> >
> > Would you agree that 11. *awe:-, 'exert one's self', might be
> > semantically related thtough the idea of 'more than normal'?
>
> The semantic connection is strained and the root itself is very doubtful
> (note the question mark in Pokorny). LIV places Skt. va:yati (whose
> meaning, by the way, is almost the opposite of 'increase') under
> *h1wah2- rather than *h2weh1-.
>
> Piotr

***

I assumed the question mark referred to the meaning "anstrengen" not to the
validity of the root itself. Is that wrong?

I admit the semantics are strained but, of course, if they were less
difficult, the question would not be coming up at all, would it?

Is not the LIV "emendment" rather capricious?

I suspect both of these roots may eventually reflect a meaning like 'huffing
and puffing', in the first, indicating 'tiredness', and 'exertion'; in the
second, on the outward sign of 'huffing': 'swelling up through more than
normal inhalation'.

Patrick