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

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

>
> > 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.
>
> 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.

>

Then you should refute the arguments given by the authors I've quoted.

> 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.
>
> It is not. Your definition of isolation is flawed.
>

Sorry, but I stand by my theory.