Re[10]: [tied] Oedipus

At 3:39:07 AM on Thursday, September 25, 2008, Arnaud
Fournet wrote:

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

>>>>> Proto-IE: *kad-
>>>>> Meaning: to injure, to harm
>>>>> Old Indian: kadana- n.`destruction, killing, slaughter';
>>>>> cakada kadanam `to kill or hurt'

>>> 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.

> In case you are not aware of that, the mere restatement of
> the standard point of view will not convince me. I
> disagree that there is a primary sense and secondary
> sense,

That's your problem, not mine.

> this story about primary and secondary is not an argument
> in favor of orthodoxy, but a consequence of the orthodoxy.

You're mistaken. It's an argument that ought to be obvious
to anyone interested in language, with or without specific
linguistic training and has doubtless been independently
invented/discovered many times by many people in connection
with many words.

> I'm saying that there are two meanings : to die and to fall.
> Both primary.

And I'm saying that the evidence strongly suggests that
you're wrong.

Brian