From: tgpedersen
Message: 58978
Date: 2008-06-02
>No, I didn't. I pointed out that all resins you'd see exude from trees
> --- 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 existNo hence. I pointed out it would make no sense to distinguish one
> (presumably because you believe redundant compounds don't exist).
> To begin countering each of your incorrect or unprovablePropose to your heart's content; resins here are golden.
> 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:All ambers here are golden, that's how.
>
>
> > > > Even if the language somehow _only_ used *gi:tu to describe
> > > > golden amber/resin,
> > > > there is no rule against redundancy in language and such formsWould you consider an etymology in which ice is called 'white snow'?
> > > > are common.
> >
> > What on earth are you talking about?Ice = 'white snow'?
>
>
> 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 theI didn't assume that.
> original meaning the word,
> any language could still clarify it by adding 'golden', especiallyYes, and then it would mean "golden resin", but who needs a word like
> 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 theSomething is wrong with the nature of my non-compound?
> 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,With a few assumptions about the unknown satem non-palatalizing
> and (so) analyzable by observation of evidenceHow do you analyze by observation of evidence? I don't have those powers.
> instead of conjecture: that is, this word does not _only_ meanHuh? What?? Have you been reading Derrida?
> '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 meaningNeither of us do.
> even if you are correct in all other parts;Fortunately, I'm still generally correct in most of my parts.
> assuming that _your_ proposed meaning is original to an element ofAha. And the above paragraph does?
> IE compound makes no sense.
> It seems you are making your objections to my theory as if IYou're doing OK as it is.
> 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 onlyGood for you. And how is that relevant?
> 'golden resin'.
> Since you made a reconstruction *gWe(n)ta- 'resin', which is soI didn't but I think the word comes from further afield. You should
> 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.