Re: [SPAM] [tied] Re: Latin /a/ after labials, IE *mori

At 5:50:22 AM on Wednesday, June 3, 2009, alexandru_mg3
wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski
> <gpiotr@...> wrote:

>> 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..."

> there are 'offsprings' having a 'common blood' either with
> me as with the 'son-in-law' ==> finally this a "clan" if I
> remember correctly : a union of "blood related"
> families....

You don't. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clan> has a
reasonably good definition:

A clan is a group of people united by kinship and descent,
which is defined by actual or perceived descent from a
common ancestor. Even if actual lineage patterns are
unknown, clan members may nonetheless recognize a founding
member or apical ancestor. The kinship-based bonds may be
merely symbolical in nature, whereby the clan shares a
"stipulated" common ancestor which is a symbol of the
clan's unity. When this ancestor is not human, this is
referred to as animallian totem. Clans can be most easily
described as tribes or sub-groups of tribes.

> But to sustain a semantism 'to know' -> 'clan, family' ???

Get it right: it's 'known' > 'family'.

> Is this a "strong" semantism ....:) :) :)

Reasonably so, yes. (Cf. the Hebrew use of <yd`> 'to know'
for sexual intercourse, translated <know> in the KJV and
<erkennen> by Luther.)

Brian