Re: Clueless roolz...

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
wrote:

>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
> To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 6:50 PM
> Subject: [tied] Re: Clueless roolz...
>
>
>
> > Nice idea
> >
> > For example
> > Germanic *sajwa "sea, lake"
> > Cf. Kartvelian zGva "sea, lake"
> >
> > Or
> > German Igel "hedgehog"
> > Cf. Kartvelian zGar
> >
> > Arnaud
> >
> > ==========
> >
>
> >Dansk Etymologisk Ordbog
> >igle ["leech"], MDa. egel, igel, No. igle, Sw. igel, MLG egel, OS,
> >OHG igil, Germ. Igel "hedgehog" (really "snake eater"), OE igel;
> >from Gmc. *eGila-, to which sideforms with i: like ON ígull, OHG
> >i:gil, OE i:gel; deriv. in *-ila, *-ula to IE *eg^hi- "leech", to
> >which eg. also Gr. échis "snake", Lith. ez^y~s, Gr. echi~nos
> >"hedgehog".
> >Any similar "snake" words in Kartvelian?
> >
> >What are your "translation rules" for loans from Kartvelian to
> >Germanic? Eg. for zG- ?
> > Torsten
>
> =======
> To start with,
> I can see nothing obvious about :
> leech, snake and hedgehog being *one* root.

Derived from one root you mean? Tell it to the Greek: échis "snake",
echi~nos "hedgehog".

> and I might have mis-understood from a previous mail
> that ON igull was Urchin,

Sea-urchin? It probably was too.

> So it makes a lot to deal with within one proto-root.
>

Yes.

> As regards Kartvelian words, which I boldly and crankly (Brian says)
> consider possible LWs into Central PIE, (Piotr says this does not
> mean anything but I disagree of course)

Toujours l'audace? Facts help too.

> I think *z or *dz is most often reflected in Central PIE as H2,
> sometimes *s, very seldom H1 or *d,
> G is reflected as kh (*gh) in Greek, *gh Balto-Slavic,
> Germanic has either *gh or *-j-


>
> I think the most intriguing point is that Germanic very often is
> closest to the original Kartvelian word structure.
> I cannot help thinking this tells us something about Germanic.

You're gonna have to back that up with fact.

> We have at least two options :
>
> 1. Germanic got in contact with a Kartvelian-related language in
> Northern Europe,
> because such a substrate existed in Northern Europe,
> this is possible, but unproved,
> It means that (para-)Kartvelian is the original family spoken in
> Eastern and Northern Europe before IE spread around there.
> I don't know, It remains to be substantiated,
> It's not my preferred hypothesis.
>
> 2. Germanic got in contact with Kartvelian because it originates in
> a place,
> where such contacts are possible, namely near Caucasus, and
> Germanic is a Central/eastern IE language.
> You know I think 2 is my preferred answer.
> I made no secret about that.

I don't think anyone has blamed you for keeping any of your beliefs
secret.

> I will add that the word *sajwa "sea" displays -wa- Erweiterung
> This Erweiterung exists in Germanic, KArtvelian (zGva), Chinese
> (cuo2), Tibetan (chwa).
> I can't help thinking this tells us something about Germanic.
>
> There *always* is some strange feature about Germanic that relates
> it to Kartvelian or Eastern languages like Yenissei, Uralic,
> Tibetan, Chinese, Mongolian, etc.
> There is no smoke without fire.
> And there is a lot of smoke, not just a couple of fuzzy words.
> There must be something about Germanic that explains why these
> oddities exist.
> Non PIE words in Germanic always are Asiatic-look-alikes, that is
> definitely intriguing.
> This does not happen with Latin or Celtic.

I can't disagree too much. I've proposed myself that the Asir and
Vanir of Germanic mythology, in Snorri and Saxo's version, were Alans
(alternative name As) and people from the kingdom of Vani in
present-day Georgia, the ancient Colchis, and that the suddenly
emerging upper crust of the Przeworsk culture were deserters from the
Mithridatic war, thus of rather heterogenous Black Sea extraction. I
have been forbidden to discuss it, but you can check the archives what
I have written on those subjects.


Torsten