Re: PIE * bhendh-

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "The Egyptian Chronicles" <the_egyptian_chronicles@...> wrote:

>
> PREAMBLE: IE. reconstructions are usually the result of etymological analysis and research into later attested words. But these words are based exclusively on IE data while ignoring the full range of the isogloss when it extends into non-related languages. Because of this procedure, the field of Indo European reconstructed linguistics is sometimes the home of many controversies and disagreements.
>
> This is more evident if the data is extended to cover attested written work in ancient (or extinct) non Indo-European languages.
>
> Whether this is done by design or is simply the result of an unintended oversight, IE linguists are still confident that they have reconstructed the Proto-Indo-European with reasonable certainty.
>
> This goes without saying, despite the lack of attested written records at the time when this word would have been spoken in any Indo-European language.
>
> The following PIE * bhendh- and its various pertinent IE data are examples which illustrates the problem:
>
> "Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch
> Pokorny Master PIE Etyma
> 127 bhendh-IE to tie, bind
>
> [snipped for brevity]
>
> BAND, n. pl. bönd, [binda; Ulf. bandi, O. H. G. pfand, whence the mod. Dan. pant; N. H. G. band; Engl. band and bond; Dan. baand.]
>

OHG <pfand> and Da. <pant> do not belong here. If memory serves, Kuhn regarded them as NWB loanwords.

> Just to be on the safe side, I proceeded to review other language families, since many of the frequent dismissals of Indo-European etymologists seem to ignore them. Below is the result of this search.
>
> A search within the Semitic database for terms with the meaning 'bind' compiled by Alexander Militarev yielded a total of 6 records; they were:
>
> 1- Number: 320
> Proto-Semitic: *sVbVb-
> Meaning: 'join, bind'
> Arabic sbb (sic)
>
> Comment: This datum is obvious an error, as there is no Arabic word sbb to mean 'bind' (actually sbb / shbb means: became a youth). Perhaps shbb is a mistake for sdd (shdd) 'to bind' ?
>
> 2- Number: 372
> Proto-Semitic: *?Vsir-
> Meaning: 'join, bind'
>
> 3 - Number: 373
> Proto-Semitic: *?Vk?id-
> Meaning: 'join, bind'
>
> 4 - Number: 1448
> Proto-Semitic: *s?^um-
> Meaning: 'join, bind'
>
> 5 - Number: 1713
> Proto-Semitic: *kVmV?-
> Meaning: 'bind'
>
> 6 - Number: 3073
> Proto-Semitic: *k?mt?
> Meaning: bind, hold tightly; sit
>
> Apparently, the search within the Semitic family, based on Alexander Militarev's database, did not yield any match for the PIE * bhendh-.
>
> While a search within the Eurasiatic compiled by Sergei Starostin yielded besides PIE *bhendh-
> the following match within the Kartvelian.
> .
> Eurasiatic: *bVndV
> Meaning: to bind
> Kartvelian: *band-
> Indo-European: *bhendh-
>

Can you rule out the possibility of borrowing from Gothic, as in the Caucasian words compiled by von Erckert, or from Iranian, as in the pan-Caucasian 'buffalo' word?

> Finally a search in the Ancient Egyptian database compiled by Alexander Militarev yielded a total of 4 records. They were:
>
> 1 - Old Egyptian: mr (med)
> Meaning: 'tie, bind'
>
> 2 - Old Egyptian: k??s (pyr)
> Meaning: 'cord; bind', MK 'string a bow'
>
> 3 - Old Egyptian: spy
> Meaning: 'bind up (a ship)' (pyr)
>
> 4 - Old Egyptian: t_?m
> Meaning: 'binding' (XVIII)
>
> Result: Based on Alexander Militarev's Ancient Egyptian database, no match was found for the PIE * bhendh-
>
> Comment: However, what drew my attention was the paucity of AE examples offered in contradiction with the known prolific terms for 'bind' in AE which can easily reach to fifty. I then proceeded to verify the Ancient Egyptian database (known for its prolific ATTESTED ancient written records).
>
> Lo and behold, I found the following :
>
> bnt: to bind, tie, to swaddle with bands, bandages, binding spells, and to copulate!
>
> http://www.theegyptianchronicles.com/AE/BNT.html
>
> Source: Maspero, Recueil de travaux relatifs à la philologie et à l'archéologie égyptiennes et assyriennes. vol. ii, 62. Paris, 1880.
>

Is this triliteral attested in Egyptian before the 18th dynasty? If not, can you rule out a possible borrowing from Mitannian? For PIE *bHn.dH-to- 'bound' one might expect a Proto-Indo-Iranian *bHn.tto-.

I have no doubt that most IEists would welcome long-range etymologies, provided systematic sound-correspondences could be provided. That is, after all, the rub with long-range work.

DGK