From: fournet.arnaud
Message: 57768
Date: 2008-04-21
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Wordingham" <richard@...>
> ==========
>> *zar is just arrow or bow.
>> Originally a spear
>> Cf. Arabic :
>> - zarra "percer quelqu'un avec une lance"
>> - zaraq "jeter un javelot contre quelqu'un"
>> - zurq (pluriel) "fers de lance ou de flèches, flèches"
>> - mizara:q "javelot, lance courte, harpon" (m- instrumental)
> >- zurqut.a: "guêpe"
>You do appreciate, don't you, that Sanskrit /ç/ is the reflex of PIE k^.
=======
I do not see the relevance of this here ?
Arnaud
=========
>> Sanscrit sara, zaru, srga, srka, "flèche".
> Note that Skt. _sara_ seems to be a Prakritisation of _çara_.
======
What is the basis for this statement ?
Arnaud
========
>
>> Nord-Caucasique zGar(-bi) "hérisson" (-bi est la marque du pluriel)
>> Ce mot est emprunté dans plusieurs langues :
>> - Finno-ougrien *s&jal "hérisson" (< *zaGar) [schwa repl .by '&' - JRW]
>> - Allemand Igel "hérisson"
>The latter goes back to PIE *h1eg^hi-.
=======
I deny any existence to this supposed PIE root.
It's a kartvelian LW into a limited group of IE languages and also a
majority of Uralic languages.
Note that G velar spirant is adapted into Greek as -kh-
zGva "sea, lake" > akh-eron and also Aegian (sea)
zGar "hedgehog" > ekh-i
This PIE root is a fiction.
About as absurd as saying that *wed is a PU root.
Arnaud
========
>_ça:yaka_ appears to be a hypersanskritisation of _sa:yaka_.
> Richard.
====
Well,
Why ?
Arnaud
========