From: stlatos
Message: 69648
Date: 2012-05-19
>Well, keeping it in Gmc, what about a comb carved w "harja" ?
>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <stlatos@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@> wrote:
> >
> > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <stlatos@> wrote:
> >
> > > > Plenty of grave stones say only "pala" and the dative of the deceased; it's pala = stone, pruia = grave (even though both came from words for stone (w cairn > grave/etc.) in PIE, their meaning at the time is what matters).
> > >
> > > Now THAT makes no sense. Anyone can see that a stone is a stone. The only reason to mention a stone on a stone is when the stone itself is significant. In most cases it is not. Carving takes time and carving 'stone' on a stone wastes it.
> > >
> > Why do you continue to attempt to use logic to disprove things already known to be true? Plenty of items in all areas of IE have inscriptions that are only (or include) the name for the thing. Why carve "horna" on a horn?; it would save time not to.
>
> HlewagastiR's 'Horn' happened to help the alliteration along. That does not apply to most Lepontic cases of <pala>.
>It obviously does not. Again, Scandinavian burial insc. just refer to raising a "staina", not specified, instead of using a compound for grave stone, or some other word. I'm not even trying to argue about what's most common, just against your statement it wasn't at all possible.
> > As I said, the PIE meaning of the word was 'stone', and in time it came to refer to grave stones (perhaps still to others, too, but we can't tell from the ev.). Even if it primarily or only meant 'stone', it's the writing of both it and the name of the deceased (and sometimes more) that fulfills what is by custom needed on a grave. Are you saying that not only should they have only put the name of the deceased on it, but that they COULDN'T have done anything else because it's not logical to say 'X's stone' or 'X's grave' because it wastes space? They couldn't even write "this stone marks X's grave' because it included 'stone' ?
>
> They COULD have done whatever they wanted. However, in MOST such cases, 'stone' is not written. On Etruscan tombstones, for example, <s^uthi> 'sepulchre' is quite common, <penthna> 'stone' quite rare. If the choice in interpreting Lepontic is between the repeatedly occurring <pala> and the hapax <pruia> for these senses, the rational choice is <pala> as 'sepulchre' (or simply 'grave', since they were inhumers), and <pruia> as 'stone'. Of course, <pruia> might have meant something else; my interpretation of the text is tentative (as are all others). But the bottom line is that reading <pala> as 'stone' flies in the face of ordinary funerary practice.
>
> Then again, you may be one of those folks with a coffee mug labeled MUG, a T-shirt labeled SHIRT, and a Renault LE CAR in the driveway (if any of those sorry crackerboxes are still running).I don't know how you can be aware of all the types of things people do and write, sometimes w no good purpose, and still say no one ever used writing to label things (or maybe just before sticky paper labels were invented?). Logic, even your attempts at logic, do nothing to show that what exists can't be possible.
>
> DGK