Re: Fw: [tied] Rayim

----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 1:50 PM
Subject: Re: 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


OOOOOPS!

http://geocities.com/proto-language/PL-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
>
> ***
>