From: fournet.arnaud
Message: 54742
Date: 2008-03-06
----- Original Message -----
From: Patrick Ryan
>
> 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.
===========
That kind of fancies has to be proved.
You can't throw it as a postulate
and then use it to claim that any look-alike words
are related.
Arnaud
=================
Take a look, why do you not?
=========
Absurd from the start.
A.
==================
***
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
***
Right guess.
I will probably never accept it.
A.
=====================