--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
> > --- stlatos <stlatos@> wrote:
> >
> > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen"
> > > <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> > ...
> > >
> > > > And why would anyone choose to characterize amber as "golden
> > > > resin" when they are practically the same color?
> > >
> > > I wouldn't say all sap, pitch, or resin (whatever the original
> > > range of meanings) was golden.
>
> No, you would probably say pitch is black. So how does that get into
> the discussion? The relevant resins are golden.
You assumed with no evidence that the word you believed existed
always and only meant one thing, golden resin, and hence no word made
of golden + golden resin could exist (presumably because you believe
redundant compounds don't exist).
To begin countering each of your incorrect or unprovable assumptions
I began by proposing an IE origin (which word had a range of
meanings). In the case of a wider range of meaning, the compound I
proposed wouldn't be redundant.
Even if it were:
> > > Even if the language somehow _only_ used *gi:tu to describe golden
> > > amber/resin, there is no rule against redundancy in language and
> > > such forms are common.
>
> What on earth are you talking about?
Redundancy exists in languages, redundant or needlessly clarifying
compounds exist, usually given as an example is "hot water heater".
Therefore, even if your assumption that 'golden resin' was the
original meaning the word, any language could still clarify it by
adding 'golden', especially if the original root had been lost in all
other words and thus become unanalyzable.
Your criticism of my theory also made no sense because of the nature
of my compound (as opposed to the non-compound of your theory) in
which the *gi:tu- portion is only one section, from PIE, and (so)
analyzable by observation of evidence instead of conjecture: that is,
this word does not _only_ mean 'golden resin' in IE languages so _in
terms of MY theory_ there is no possibility of redundancy.
You have no way of knowing the original meaning even if you are
correct in all other parts; assuming that _your_ proposed meaning is
original to an element of IE compound makes no sense.
It seems you are making your objections to my theory as if I should
be and am following your assumptions about meaning also. If I were
then I would be making no sense, but I am not: I don't believe (any
part) of the word meant only 'golden resin'.
Since you made a reconstruction *gWe(n)ta- 'resin', which is so
similar to PIE *gWetu-, even with a rounded labial, I have no idea why
you wouldn't believe it was from an IE language or why you'd reject an
IE connection once pointed out.