----- Original Message -----
From: proto-language
To: nostratic@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 2:10 AM
Subject: Re: [nostratic] AA-IE
 
> The main meaning of *g^en- is 'introduce semen into the vagina'.
 
In what language?
 
> IE *seH- means 'emitted'.
 
That's right. Various kinds of emission, including the discharge of semen (*seh1-mn). But the meaning 'sow' is also of PIE date.
 
>> [*g^enh1-] 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.
 
> Greek gennáo:, 'I beget'.
 
It means 'produce from oneself, engender', but can be used of either parent. Actually, it is a denominal verb, from <genna:> 'birth, origin', hence its rather general meaning.
 
>>> And I believe there are forms in IE languages which require *g^en-.
 
>> You mean, forms which require *g^en- but rule out *g^enh1-? Which particular forms?
 
> Old Indian jánati for one. Need more? Greek geneté:, 'birth'.
 
Neither of these rules out *g^enh1-e-.
 
>> 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.
 
> And who would that be?
 
Thomsen, Hayes -- in fact, any professional Sumerologist.
 
>> Well, to be frank, I don't see any solid evidence for EITHER *g^er- OR *ger- meaning 'twist, turn, plait' or the like.
 
> How about OHG kratto, 'basket'?
 
By solid evidence I mean several relatable forms from different branches, plus an account of their derivation from the IE protoform. Note that Latin cra:tis 'wickerwork, hurdle' and related terms have been borrowed throughout Europe (hence English crate, for example). That word is cognate to English hurdle, but not to *g^er- or the like.
 
>> What's ridiculous -- the phonaesthetic value of [skr-]?
 
> Yes.
English scrabble, scrape, scratch, Latin scri:bo:, scru:peus, Russian skrez^etat', skripet', etc. are NOT iconic? If you insist they aren't, I can only sigh.
 
>>> I think the idea is rather 'become visible by being scraped'.
 
>> 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?
 
> And why should I take your word when I have my own?
 
Well, at least I've offered some concrete evidence, not just my humble opinion or speculative guesses.
 
>> The cognates I'm aware of suggest an original meaning like 'glow, produce luminescence'.
 
> Not the way I interpret them at all. The idea is 'something bare that is reflective and stands out from the decidedly unbare environment'.
 
If just keep rephrasing your original assertion without substantiating it, the discussion is getting nowhere.
 
Piotr