dive (was Re: Sos-)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Torsten" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

>
>
>
> >
> > > Which entails that PIE had
> > > 1. bagn- "swamp"
> > > 2. pan- "swamp"
> > > Are you sure that holds up?
> >
> > Why not? You've seen it's quite possible for a language to
> > simultaneously have words such as _deep_, _dive_, _dip_ and so on.
> >
> > There's no law that states that proto-languages have to have been
> > some sort of pristine creations free of irregularities, lexical
> > substrates and so on forth. The available methods of
> > reconstruction probably make them usually seem more regular they
> > actually were.
> >
>
> I think I'll add
> UEW
> 'pan,ka 3 'eine Art Pilz (Fliegenpilz; Agarius muscarius), aus dem
> Narkotikum hergestellt wird' FU

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanita_regalis

Don't try this at home. Experimental semantics can be taken too far. Note the distribution (carried?).


Torsten