1,2 and 3 dimensions

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew Jarrette" <anjarrette@...> wrote:

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Finally, STC reconstructs yet another supposedly unrelated root in
> > this semantic area, *blin,~*plin, 'full' (#142), underlying such
> > forms as WB prañ´ 'be full', phrañ´ 'fill'; Mikir plen, 'be
> > full', peplen, 'fill', etc. From what has already been said, it
> > should be clear that this set represents the very same etymon as
> > #138 and #352
>
>
> I can't help but wonder whether these Sino-Tibetan words might be
> borrowings from Sanskrit (cf. WB <prañ>/<phrañ>, Mikir
> <plen>/peplen> with Skt <pra:nah.> "filled, full").

That would be from some l-dialect, then.

> If not Sanskrit, maybe some other IE source (perhaps the ancestors
> of Tocharian?) unless you know this to be out of the question.
> From here I also wonder whether the "flat" words might not also be
> due to borrowing rather than shared heritage.

I don't think Matisoff argues either way.
I think it's pretty obvious they must be loans. If words could survive
from a common ST-PIE ancestor that unscathed, where are the other ones
then?
Against the idea that PIE is the ultimate donor is the fact that we
can't connect the *p-l- "flat" and *p-l- "full" roots within PIE.

The whole complex is rather important, since it shows the beginning of
concepts of space.

The article was first presented in 1986. Matisoff's Handbook of
Proto-Tibeto-Burman from 2002 has not two, but three roots of that shape:
*blen, <> *plen, "straight(en)" ~ *plen, "flat surface, plank",
*blin, "string, thread, cord" and
*blin, <> *plin, "full, fill".


Torsten