Dear Piotr and Nostraticists:
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Piotr Gasiorowski
To: nostratic@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 5:43 PM
Subject: Re: [nostratic] AA-IE

I do not feel qualified to discuss the validity of Proto-Dravidian or Proto-Afroasiatic reconstructions. I can offer comments mainly on IE forms. Other things being equal, one would expect IE data to be of superior quality. Unfortunately, there is no really usable "PIE dictionary" for informed amateurs; root inventories like Pokorny's are of limited value -- they don't reflect the current state of PIE studies, and contain a high proportion of questionable reconstructions, inaccuracies and patently false data. Cross-family comparisons often draw from doubtful or outdated sources and indiscriminately mix figments with reliable forms. Your list is no exception, I'm afraid. Now as for details:
 
(1) Reflexes of PIE *g^enh1-/*g^onh1-/*g^nh1- (this is the correct form) 'beget' are not attested with the meaning 'make love'.
 
[PCR]
I assume because you are not a native speaker of English, you are confused.
 
I have never asserted that *g^en- meant 'make love', just fornication; it means 'beget', 'fertilize an ovum with sperm'. I hope you are not asserting that it does not mean that because you would be dead wrong!
 
And I believe there are forms in IE languages which require *g^en-.
 
[PG]
 PIE had other specialised terms for the latter. Sumerian has a number of terms for 'child', the most important of them being <dumu>. What is your **gin-na based on?
 
[PCR]
I have explained that in a previous message to the list.
 
[PG]
 The Sumerian verb corresponding semantically to PIE *g^enh1- (meaning 'bear, give birth, beget, fashion, create', etc.) is <tud> -- no etymological relation.
 
[PCR]
You mix apples with oranges: first, there is 'beget', then 'bear'. And frankly, I doubt whether tu(d) means 'beget'. The archaic sign depicts a 'seed with a sprout'.
 
I suspect that tu(d) is ultimately cognate with *do:u-, and simply means 'give', i.e. 'produce'.
 
[PG]
(2) The PIE words for 'crane' are considered to be deverbal, from *gerh2- (~ *grah2-) 'make a loud cry'. Similar terms for noisy birds are very common (Baltic/Slavic *k^orh2-k-ah2 'magpie', various names for 'crow' or 'raven'), so the 'crane' word is probably of imitative origin. Such items should be used with great care, if at all, in distant comparison.
 
[PCR]
Yes, one must be careful. But, I will say, that I consider Nostratic had a heavy bias towards nominal forms. And again, Arabic kurki:y-un, 'crane', shows no sign of a 'laryngeal'.
 
[PG]
(3) [Why separate two homophonous and semantically overlapping etyma?] PIE has a good number of roots meaning approximately 'turn', 'twist' or 'plait', 'weave', but *ger- is not particularly conspicuous among them. In fact, I doubt if it can be regarded as authentic. What particular forms justify this reconstruction?
 
[PCR]
It is the cognates from other languages, which cannot represent *g^ that incline me in this direction. But there is also Old Indian gárta-H, 'wagon-seat'.
 
[PG]
(4) Very loose semantics, plus a questionable equation within IE. Gk. kephale: matches Toch. A s'pa:l formally and semantically, but the Germanic 'gable' word may be unrelated.
 
[PCR]
Yes, perhaps not as strong.
 
[PG]
(5) PIE has *gerbH- 'carve, notch' plus several "scratchy" roots like *skrebH-, all of them no doubt onomatopoeic
 
[PCR]
Ridiculous!
 
 and thus of little use in distant comparison. As for <zrák>, why cite only a Czech word if the root in question is found everywhere in Slavic and a precise reconstruction is possible? The original meaning of the word is 'sight' (the semantic development as in German Gesicht), derived from the Slavic verb *zIr-E-ti 'look, see; appear, be visible', from *g^Her- 'shine' (Slavic *zorja 'light in the sky'). I think you lump together unrelated items here.
 
[PCR]
I think the idea is rather 'become visible by being scraped'.
 
Pat