----- Original Message -----
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