From: alexandru_mg3
Message: 63999
Date: 2009-06-04
>We have three words
> On 2009-06-02 23:15, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
> > 'to know' --> 'family, clan' in Gothic?
> > 'to know' --> 'kinsman, close relative' in Sanskrit?
> > even
> > 'to know' --> 'son-in-law' in Latvian?
>
> *g^noh3-ti- 'close acquaintance' in PIE --> various derived senses.
>
> > (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?
>
> I've no idea what you mean. What have "blood links" got to do with
> sons-in-law? The whole point of being "in-law" is that the relationship
> is _not_ consanguineous. Are you proposing a "lucus a non lucendo"
> etymology? Talking of "poor semantism..."
>
> Piotr
> > 'to know' --> 'family, clan' in Gothic?and you continously has talked only about the semantism of 'son-in-
> > 'to know' --> 'kinsman, close relative' in Sanskrit?
> > even
> > 'to know' --> 'son-in-law' in Latvian?