PR: Misunderstood again. I was
referring to Kurylowicz's 1927 proof that the CVC structure for roots like
*(s)ta:- was found as /h/ in Hittite.
PG: No, you said "Kurylowicz wpould
turn in his grave" if he heard of *g^enh1- "being put forward as a
root". Actually, he called such things "roots" himself, like many other
scholars before him and after him.
PR: I can see no advantage for
*g^enH- at all. And *H is certainly not "prevocalic" if *H was not a part of
the root...
"Prevocalic" means "followed by a
vowel", whether part of the root or not.
[PR: Piotr misrepresents what he
did. He mentioned a number of Slavic forms that may or may not be related
to zrak, having to do with 'shine'.
In Pokorny, these words are derived
from 3. *g^her-. Pokorny also has 2. *g^her-, 'scratch, scrape', just before
it. Obviously, zrak could just as easily be derived from 2. as from 3.
*g^her-, which, in effect, is what I am suggesting.
PG: First, let me assure you that the forms I gave _are_ related
to <zrák>. The Czech word is not an isolated relict that could be
interpreted "just as easily" any odd way, but a member of a large
word-family. Its cognates occur so densely in Slavic, and all the
historical stages of semantic shifts that have affected them are so well
documented, that there can be no mistake.]
PR: Well, demonstrate it instead of talking about it. I
maintain, until shown otherwise, that zrak could as easily stem from 2.
*g^her- as from 3. *g^her-.
PG: In your Russian dictionary
you should find at least the following: zerkalo 'mirror', zrac^ok 'pupil of the eye' (diminutive of zrak-),
zrelis^c^e 'spectacle', zrenije 'sight, vision', nad-zor 'supervision,
nad-zirat' 'oversee', and many others. The Polish word for 'sight' is wzrok
< *vU-zor-k- (the zame *zork- that gives Czech zrák; the Czech meaning
'face' is simply a loan-translation of German Gesicht). The same or
similar words can be found in all Slavic languages from Old Church Slavic
to Kashubian. The reflexes of the Slavic root
*zIr-/*zor-/*zir- (< *g^Her-) now usually mean 'see, watch', etc.,
but may also retain the meaning of 'appear, be visible' (ambiguity as
in English look), as confirmed by derivatives like zorja 'light in the sky'
and Baltic cognates.
PG: That you don't know
much about Slavic is evident. <zarosl'> = {za+rost+l'}. The root here
is {rost-} < Proto-Slavic *orst- 'grow', and {za-} is a prefix of
prepositional origin.
PR: And that you are a rude boor
is also evident.
PG: ... says Pat when he can't
think of anything clever to say.
PR: A Polish dictionary would be
inferior to Liddell-Hart because only Poles would read it.
PG: I know at least two other
people on this list who are not native speakers of Polish but can understand
the language. Do you mean that it's normal to be a monolingual
English-speaker? Guillaume's point about American arrogance is well taken,
though fortunately there are also Americans to whom it doesn't
apply.
PR: gennao: is not derived from genna:.
PG: With the level of Classical
education being as it is, no wonder that some people haven't heard of Greek
denominal verbs in -ao:/-aomai (like <sigao:> from <sige:> or
<aitiaomai> from <aitia>). But as Glen said, ignorance is one
thing but stubborn contradiction is another.
PR: What you think are
essentials, are actually insignificant details. Root extensions come and go
but the CVC roots of IE had a very long life.
PG: Whatever you
say.
Like Guillaume, I'm seriously
considering unsubscribing from this list.
Piotr