Re[8]: [tied] Oedipus

From: Brian M. Scott
Message: 60300
Date: 2008-09-25

At 11:40:55 AM on Wednesday, September 24, 2008, Arnaud Fournet wrote:

> From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>

>>>> 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.

Only if one uses the copy of Pokorny at <>.
And even if you do, the PIE database gives the meaning of
the root as 'to injure, to harm', not 'to kill', so my
objection still applies.


>>> 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'.

> 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.

Pokorny isn't the only one: you'll find that Watkins also
assigns <cadaver> and related Latin words to *k^ad-. And
for good reason: it goes with <cadere> 'to fall; to die'.
The verb has an obvious cognate in OInd. <s'ad-> 'abfallen,
ausfallen', which points to *k^-, not *k-, and the cognates
in general clearly show that 'fall' is the primary sense,
'die' being secondary.