From: tgpedersen
Message: 57881
Date: 2008-04-23
>Odd. I mentioned that too then. Nice to know other people can also
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@> wrote:
> >
> > If *-ter- has a contrastive value in *h2(h1)s-te:r, what is the
> > 'star' word contrasted with? A black hole?
> >
> > Piotr
> >
>
> er... not far wrong, apparently:
>
> "*h2h1ster- was internally derived from an adverb *h2h1ster based on
> the root noun *h2oh1s- 'burning', whence 'fire'. Consequently, it
> meant 'pertaining [by contrast] to the burning', this last term
> referring to the ever-glowing celestial fire. There is more to learn
> from this reconstruction. The contrastive value of the original
> adverb is effectively kept in the derived noun: the brightness of
> the stars do contrast with the surrounding darkness of the night.
> The stars, while being entities proper to the night, stand out in
> the general obscurity, because of their partaking of the fire which
> burns continuously in some remote vault of heaven."
>
> That's why I didn't mention the 'star' part of the article to start
> with ;)
>