From: stlatos
Message: 68105
Date: 2011-10-05
>That is the stupidest attempt at making an argument I've ever heard. Also, English is well-known for making a distinction between 'house' and 'home', among other possible-but-seldom-needed-or-used distinctions, none of which are needed to differentiate or explain the PIE forms.
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <stlatos@> wrote:
> >
> > > 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').
> >
> 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.
>It is not. Your definition of isolation is flawed.
> > > 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.
> >
> On semantic grounds, the concept of 'place of dwelling' can be readily
> derivated from 'to live, to sit'. Also *dom- 'household' is isolated
> within PIE.