--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> On 2009-06-02 18:53, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:cybalist%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > "alexandru_mg3" <alexandru_mg3@> wrote:
> >
> > Hello Piotr,
> > I do not see any reaction from you, on these examples, that hardly can
> > be linked to any other root but g^enh1- 'to beget'
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > Goth. kno:dai [dat.sg.f.] 'family' *g^noh1-
> > Skt jña:ti 'kinsman *g^noh1-ti-
> > Latv. znuõts 'son-in-law' *g^noh1-t-
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Hardly any other? How come that most linguists interpret the word as
> *g^noh3-ti- 'known, recognised' (see Lubotsky for I-Ir. and Derksen for
> Balto-Slavic), perhaps secondarily contaminated with *g^enh1- in Lith.
> z^éntas. I, for one, wouldn't like to beget my own son-in-law, but I'd
> like to know him.
>
> Piotr
I know this derivation: but this is a pure formalism .....and I don't care if Lubotsky, Derksen or even Dieus Pater will sustain such a thing... if the semantism 'to know' for these words is so poor and the semantism of 'genitor' is so strong.
(even for Lubotsky I'm not sure, as I remember)
Even I'm the first, that I like to have single clear phonetic rules
(you have seen this, for mo- > mo- and mo- > ma-)
But I would say : better not to have clear phonetic rules with the price of a poor semnatism:
'to know' --> 'family, clan' in Gothic?
'to know' --> 'kinsman, close relative' in Sanskrit?
even
'to know' --> 'son-in-law' in Latvian?
(regarding 'beget' -> 'family' -> 'son-in-law' this is Ok; even a son-in-low has some 'blood links' with my 'blood links', isn't it?
The extended meaning of g^enh1- is finally 'having a common blood' even for a extended relation that is only indirect a complete one on a given set)
Schwebeablaut, secondary full grades, latter formations, modications due to accentual paradigm, doesn't matter at all, all these concepts...with the price of the semantism
If for a Model we arrive to Ignore the Sematism of the three words above so finally the Facts and to arrive to propose such a poor semantism
(and I don't say about you here, I know also this derivation g^noh3- as you know it too)
I have put these examples only for their strong semantism in relation with g^enh1- and also that their formation *g^noh1-t-, belongs very probable, to the PIE times (based on all of them)
And as you know, there are other words for other roots, but for me these 3 represent the basis of the existence of CREH- / CERH- formations, maybe not from the beg., but still in PIE times...
Marius