From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 54093
Date: 2008-02-24
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
To: "Patrick Ryan" <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 11:19 AM
Subject: Re[4]: [tied] Latinus geminus
> At 7:47:43 PM on Saturday, February 23, 2008, Patrick Ryan
> wrote:
>
> > From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
>
> [Quoting Hamp:]
>
> >> 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'.
>
> > It seems to me that someone is forever trying to muddy the
> > waters as I suspect Schwartz is doing here.
>
> Note that the gloss 'pair, couple; copulate, mate,
> consummate a marriage' is Hamp's, not Schwartz's.
>
> > IMHO, based on etymology, *g^em- is simply 'copulate':
>
> Brian
>
>
>