PIE *dom- 'household' (was Re: Gimbutas)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Tavi" <oalexandre@...> wrote:

>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <stlatos@> wrote:
> >
> > > > For example, if we admit that dom- and demH2 were from the same
> root
> > >
> > > Oh, come on! PIE *dom- 'household' is a NOUN root, not a verb.
> >
> > both are from * dem-x+ = make straight/right/fitting > fit in /
> enclose / etc. > make (tame/fitting/good) / etc.
> >

> No, what you've got is two verb roots *demH2- 'to build' and *domH2- 'to
> tame', which are possibly the same, and a NOUN root *dom- 'household'
> (not 'house') which IMHO (and also those of other specialists) has
> nothing to do with the former.

It is ridiculous to posit *demH2- 'to build' and *dom- 'household' (which often just means 'house') and not connect them. You have given me no reason to think *dom- is a better rec. than *domx- or sim. (in *dmaxnó+ > dëma:na- \ nma:na- 'house' in Avestan, it shows the -x-, just as in 'build').


Even if there were a root that only meant 'household' and not 'house', ev. for -x- is seen in something like:

*dèm-x-mó+ > *dàxmó+ > *da:mo+ > dám = retinue / band (of followers) EIr; dámh = family Ir;


The same etymon gives the formally identical:

tamal = roof Ar;
dámalis = young ox/steer G; (compare: dam = tame animal Pers)

both showing -x-, and not connecting 'house' to 'part of house' = 'roof' would be foolish (compare: dómos , domé: = wall G; connecting 'house' to 'part of house' = 'wall' ; for further confirmation).

> The problem of most Indo-Europeanists is that they've got an
> isolacionist point of view, and so they try to explain everthing in IE
> from PIE itself.

You have given no ev. that the direction of borrowing was Proto-Afrasian *dam- 'to live, to last, to sit' > PIE, even if such a borrowing occurred or such a word in that form or that language existed.