Re: Fw: [tied] Rayim

----- Original Message -----
From: "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 10:30 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Fw: [tied] Rayim


>
> The words conceptually grouped with 'back/spine/tree' are based on
> *ra:(H)-;
> PIE *re(:)-, 'back(ward)', is based on *rA from *ra.
>
> Patrick
> ==================
> I don't think
> "back" has anything to do with "tree"
> this is absolutely inadequate.

***

You are missing one of the most fascinating aspects of our most ancient
language: the wide range of meaning for the monosyllables that included, in
the case of non-aspirates, reference points on the human body, which were
then connected with analogous phenomena in nature.

*ra is the 'spine', which, to the eyes of the earliest speakers, fulfilled a
function similar to the 'trunk' of a tree.

Take a look, why do you not?

http://geocities.com/proto-language/ProtoLanguage-Monosyllables-short.htm#RA

***


> backward is "reH1"
>
> What is this "tree" *ra thing ?

***

*ra would become *rA in earliest PIE; and *rA is realizable as
*ré/*ro/*R(ø).

Without having been lengthened, *ra would be seen in PIE as *ré which could
_subsequently_ have been lengthened to *re: by a 'laryngeal', i.e. *H.

***


> I can't see a single word to support
> this new fancy of yours.
>
> Arnaud
>
> =====================


***

Whatever else it may be, it is not new.

I have been working with this theory for many years.

PL RA, 'tree', is not easy to see within PIE. I will cite one word in which
I think it occurs but you will not accept it: *rebh-, 'arch over, vaulted'.


Patrick

***