From: Tavi
Message: 68104
Date: 2011-10-05
>Apparently, English doesn't make a clear distinction between the concepts of 'house' as a building and 'residence' (i.e. 'place of dwelling'), unlike French, which has respectively maison and demeure. So it's no wonder Beneviste and Chantraine were capable of differentiating both, where English-speaking linguists tend to confuse them.
> > 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').
>
> > The problem of most Indo-Europeanists is that they've got anOn semantic grounds, the concept of 'place of dwelling' can be readily derivated from 'to live, to sit'. Also *dom- 'household' is isolated within PIE.
> > 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.
>