Re: A LEGITIMATE QUESTION ABOUT 'WATER' ISOGLOSS TO I.E. LINGUIST

At 12:26:29 AM on Thursday, September 6, 2012, The Egyptian
Chronicles wrote:

> I have a legitimate question about how and why I.E.
> linguists determine a term to be considered strictly
> Indo-European.

> An example would be the following:

> Linguists believe PIE had two root words for water:
> *ap-and *wed-.

[...]

> Both terms (*ap-and *wed-.) are offered as being part of
> the basic Indo-European vocabulary. Often, these terms are
> offered as the core of their "show case" Indo-European
> examples. The current post you are discussing exemplifying
> this clearly and decisivly.

> This assertion, often taken for granted, is now being
> challenged by the presence of similar terms for water in
> Arabic, a non-Indo-European language

Challenged by whom?

> (these terms are `dr, `dd, and `bb which correspond to PIE
> *ap-and *wed-.

In what sense do they correspond?

> This points to a problem which needs to be addressed when
> dealing with isoglosses which cut across family languages.

> To my knowledge these terms are only found in Arabic and
> are non-existent in other sister languages. I was often
> asked whether or not there are any other examples in
> Semitic languages? My answer is: should it it matter,
> especially in the light of the extensive and comprehensive
> definitions found in Old Arabic and Classical Arabic?

Of course it should matter. Presence in just one branch of
a family is evidence that something is a loan into that
branch. It's not conclusive evidence, of course, but it's
certainly enough to prevent projection of the word to the
family as a whole without very good reason.

[...]

> Actually these definitions are so overwhelmingly detailed
> as to pose enough of a challenge (in this particular
> case), to all combined Indo European examples offered so
> far.

What on earth does the amount of detail in the definitions
have to do with it?

> It is my belief that there is something amiss here that
> has never been addressed.

> I've never heard any I.E. Linguists officially discussing
> this anomaly.

There doesn't seem to be anything to discuss.

Brian