Dear Peter and Nostraticists:
----- Original Message -----From: Piotr GasiorowskiSent: Saturday, May 19, 2001 3:07 PMSubject: Re: [nostratic] AA-IE----- Original Message -----From: proto-languageSent: Saturday, May 19, 2001 7:46 AMSubject: Re: [nostratic] AA-IE[PCRp]> 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![PG]First, PIE-speakers knew precious little about the fertilisation process, so a modern technical meaning like 'fertilise an ovum with sperm' cannot have existed at the time.[PCR]Of, our ancestors did not realize that ejaculation within a vagina resulted in children. How primitive they were!The main meaning of *g^en- is 'introduce semen into the vagina'/[PG]The meaning 'to introduce semen' was expressed like 'to sow' (PIE *seh1-, *se-sh1-e-, etc.).[PCR]IE *seH- means 'emitted'.[PG]What I mean is that *g^enh1- refers to the vertical relation between the parent and the offspring: 'be the parent of, give birth to', and by extension also 'cause, produce, create'. Hence also derivatives like *g^enh1-es- 'descent, origin; race, offspring' etc. It does _not_ refer to fornication, insemination, etc., and if you think it does, please show your evidence rather than declare me dead wrong ex cathedra, as it were.[PCR]Greek gennáo:, 'I beget'.[PCRp]> And I believe there are forms in IE languages which require *g^en-.[PG]You mean, forms which require *g^en- but rule out *g^enh1-? Which particular forms?[PCR]Old Indian jánati for one. Need more? Greek geneté:, 'birth'.[PCRp]> 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]Well, I'm not a trained Sumerologist (neither are you, I presume), so I'm inclined to respect the interpretation offered as standard by those who know better.[PCR]And who would that be?[PG]"A seed with a sprout" sums it up rather nicely as far as I'm concerned.[PCR]Yes, 'to produce'.[PCRp]> 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]I don't think PIE *h2 was a "laryngeal" in articulatory terms[PCR]There is no such thing as a 'laryngeal' in phonological terms. Phonologically, laryngals and pharyngals describe the sounds that Nostraticists early labeled 'laryngeal' to cover both.[PG]-- a velar~uvular fricative, more like. But that's quite irrelevant.[PCR]Quite irrelevant![PG]My point is that most bird names with the segmental structure KVr-C- are sound-imitative and may be coined independently in unrelated language groups. My native Polish has <kura> for 'hen' (and <kurka> for 'little hen'), <kruk> for 'raven', <sroka> for 'magpie' (with s < *k^), <krakwa> for 'gadwall', <krakac'> for 'croak', <gruchac'> 'coo (of pidgeons and doves)', etc. (I _mean_ "etc.").[PCR]Undoubtedly some are! Undoubtedly some are not![PCRp]> 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]Well, to be frank, I don't see any solid evidence for EITHER *g^er- OR *ger- meaning 'twist, turn, plait' or the like.[PCR]How about OHG kratto, 'basket'?[PG]>> PIE has *gerbH- 'carve, notch' plus several "scratchy" roots like *skrebH-, all of them no doubt onomatopoeic ...[PCRp]> Ridiculous![PG]What's ridiculous -- the phonaesthetic value of [skr-]?[PCR]Yes.[PG]>> ... 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.[PCRp]> I think the idea is rather 'become visible by being scraped'.[PG]So we have your word for it, but where's the evidence? Have you really examined the data or just accepted a reconstruction offered by somebody who took it from somebody else, who'd made it up?[PCR]And why should I take your word when I have my own?[PCR]The root *g^Her-, by the way, is not pan-IE but restricted to the NW area (best attested in Balto-Slavic, with possible but slightly uncertain Germanic and Celtic cognates. The notion of getting exposed through scraping is not reflected in any of the actually attested forms. For example, *zorja refers to the break of day or the fading light at sundown. The cognates I'm aware of suggest an original meaning like 'glow, produce luminescence'.[PCR]Not the way I interpret them at all. The idea is 'something bare that is reflective and stands out from the decidedly unbare environment'.PatPATRICK C. RYAN | PROTO-LANGUAGE@...
(501) 227-9947 * 9115 W. 34th St. Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 USA
WEBPAGES: PROTO-LANGUAGE: http://www.geocities.com/proto-language/
and PROTO-RELIGION:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803/proto-religion/indexR.html"Veit ec at ec hecc, vindgá meiði a netr allar nío,
geiri vndaþr . . . a þeim meiþi, er mangi veit,
hvers hann af rótom renn." (Hávamál 138)