From: Arnaud Fournet
Message: 60283
Date: 2008-09-24
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
To: "Arnaud Fournet" <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
>
>>> Which has *ka(:)d- 'schädigen, berauben, verfolgen',
>>> *kadH- 'hüten, schützend bedecken', and k^ad- 'fallen'.
>>> I know; I'd already checked. I'd not gloss any of those
>>> 'kill', though I assume that you mean the first one.
>
>> You have not checked far enough.
>
> You're wrong: I did read the entries.
===========
I repeat, you did not check far enough.
The meaning "kill" is explicitly mentioned in the PIE database, which is
accessable from each entry of Pokorny.
Now, I suppose it's highly advisable to check if the data really match the
entry.
they do not in that case.
Arnaud
============
>
> Perhaps I should have made my point more directly: when you
> cite PIE roots, please identify them clearly, e.g.,
> > PIE *kad- 'kill' (Pokorny's *ka(:)d- 'to injure, harm').
> > in the PIE database of Starling.rinet.ru
======
ok,
Arnaud
===========
>
>> Proto-IE: *kad-
>> Meaning: to injure, to harm
>> Old Indian: kadana- n.`destruction, killing, slaughter';
>> cakada kadanam `to kill or hurt'
>
>> Are killing and slaughter not related to "kill" ?
>
> The IA words aren't the whole of the entry; their senses are
> at one extreme of the range covered.
>
>> And what about Latin cada:ver ?
>
> Goes with *k^ad- 'to fall'.
> > Brian
>
===========
I consider it absurd to erase the meaning "to kill"
1. by assuming that a cadaver is "fallen" instead of "killed"
2. by assuming that "to kill" means "beschädigen",
these words are obviously related
and Pokorny is wrong to tear this relationship apart.
Arnaud
=============