Re: Amber

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

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <stlatos@> wrote:
> >
> > --- 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,
>
> No, I didn't. I pointed out that all resins you'd see exude from trees
> in these latitudes are golden, or amber-colored.

You said the word was borrowed; how would you know if it was
originally redundant? The speakers of the language could have lived
almost anywhere.

> > and hence no word made of golden + golden resin could exist
> > (presumably because you believe redundant compounds don't exist).
>
> No hence. I pointed out it would make no sense to distinguish one
> substance from another with a color adjective if they are both the
> same color (and they are, see above).

Whether you think it makes sense or not, redundancy exists.

> > > > > there is no rule against redundancy in language and such forms
> > > > > are common.
> > >
>
> Would you consider an etymology in which ice is called 'white snow'?
> That would be redundant, but there is no rule against redundancy in
> language and such forms are common. Or something.

I've made this as clear as possible using real examples. I don't
know why you're continuing to make up forms as if they have some
relevance.

> > 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.
>
> Yes, and then it would mean "golden resin", but who needs a word like
> that when all resins are golden?

I never said it was needed. Redundancy by definition is not
necessary and yet it exists.

> > 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)
>
> Something is wrong with the nature of my non-compound?

Since my compound is of IE origin it can be divided into sections
based on comparative evidence. Then each portion can be analyzed
individually. Yours, from a supposedly unknown language, cannot have
its older meaning analyzed by examination of its form (or those of its
parts if it were a compound). There's nothing "wrong" with that part
of your theory by itself, I just explained that your theory of the
meaning of your (entire) word didn't apply to one part of mine.

> > in which the *gi:tu- portion is only one section, from PIE,
>
> With a few assumptions about the unknown satem non-palatalizing
> transmission language, yes.

I didn't say it was necessarily non-pal., any more than Sanskrit
would be just because of *kWi>ki- (with analogical extension of
kW+back V to restore kW to kY+front V).

> > 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.
>
> Huh? What?? Have you been reading Derrida?

I don't know what you're talking about. If PIE gWetu- didn't mean
'golden resin' then adding 'golden' to it wouldn't be redundant.

>
> > You have no way of knowing the original meaning
>
> Neither of us do.

I wouldn't say my theory is certain, but if from an IE compound the
meaning is knowable. If it's from non-IE I'd agree with your
evaluation, but there's nothing to show it's definitely from non-IE.

If you mean even PIE wouldn't necessarily show the original meaning,
that may be true, but I'm not trying to go further than the immediate
source of the loans (if indeed they are loans).

> > but I am not: I don't believe (any part) of the word meant only
> > 'golden resin'.
>
> Good for you. And how is that relevant?

I'm attempting to respond to your objections. Since they make no
sense it's difficult to know what responses you'd accept.

You continue to say the word applied to 'resin (only gold-colored)'
not sap, pitch, etc., but you also say it didn't originally mean
'golden resin', and when I say it didn't originally mean 'golden
resin' you want to know why it's relevant?

I don't know if the oddity of your responses is due to malice or
stupidity, but if you don't change your ways I'm done responding.