Re: PIE -*C-presents

----- Original Message -----
From: "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 6:30 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: PIE -*C-presents


> On 2008-02-20 01:09, Patrick Ryan wrote:
>
> > I assumed the question mark referred to the meaning "anstrengen" not to
> > the
> > validity of the root itself. Is that wrong?
>
> The root itself is a controversial reconstruction, based on very little
> material.
>
> > 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?
>
> Well, by contrast, *h2aug- and *h2weg-s- (*h2weks-) have practically the
> same meaning and are amply supported by examples from various branches
> of IE.

***

No problem for me to acknowledge that: Ha(:)u-g-s-, two extensions with
virtually no change in meaning.

***



> > Is not the LIV "emendment" rather capricious?
>
> It seems better supported than Pokorny's reconstruction.

***

But, of course, that is not saying much for either, is it?

***

> > 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'.
>
> This is the kind of connection that can be made between anything and
> anything else. If 'strong' = 'exhausted' then, I suppose, 'fire' =
> 'water' (an original meaning like 'alcohol'?).
>
> Piotr

***

Come on, Piotr, you know that is a bit of exaggeration.

Patrick