Re: Fw: [tied] Rayim

Arnaud is quite the joker.

First he asks me to "prove" my equivalences; then he refuses to look at the
material that might.

Are you afraid that new information might injure your mind?


Patrick

----- Original Message -----
From: "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 2:39 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Fw: [tied] Rayim


>
> ----- 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.
>
> =====================
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>