Re: Re[2]: [tied] Latinus geminus

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
To: "alexandru_mg3" <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2008 4:58 PM
Subject: Re[2]: [tied] Latinus geminus


> At 5:20:24 PM on Saturday, February 23, 2008, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
> It seems to me that Schwartz is clearly correct (p. 200)
> in attributing to *g'em- the primary meaning of 'pairing,
> coupling', which is reflected in Rig-Vedic <vi-já:man->
> 'paired, twin' and Latin <geminus>. The development of
> the sense 'twin' for Irish <emon> from the base *yem-
> 'grasp together' is, as Schwarz implies, quite another
> matter.

<snip>

> The reference is to Martin Schwartz, Monumentum H.S. Nyberg,
> Acta Iranica II. 1975. 195-211.
>
> Later he glosses *g'em- 'pair, couple; copulate, mate,
> consummate a marriage', adding 'I have been present at
> Balkan wedding feasts where this act has been ritually
> attested to by the institutional waving -- with some
> embarrassment and not with obscenity -- of a blood-stained
> cloth'.
>
> Brian

***

It seems to me that someone is forever trying to muddy the waters as I
suspect Schwartz is doing here.

IMHO, based on etymology, *g^em- is simply 'copulate':

"http://geocities.com/proto-language/PL-Monosyllables_short.htm#K?E"

= *g^é

*yem is simply 'two of any thing':

"http://geocities.com/proto-language/PL-Monosyllables_short.htm#%c2%bfA"

= *yé

To introduce terms like 'couple, pair', etc. with *g^em- is misleading since
they apply loosely also to *yem-.

Universal Oneness is nice but not with words.


Patrick