Dear Piotr and Nostraticists:

 

 

----- Original Message -----
From: Piotr Gasiorowski
To: nostratic@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 1:22 AM
Subject: [nostratic] (unknown)

 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 1:19 AM
Subject: Re: [nostratic] AA-IE

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 woould 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.
[PCR]
Do not presume to tell me to what I was referring.
 
 
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.
[PCR]
I do not need to be lectured by you on the meaning of words in English. And 'prevocalic' is better summarized as 'before a vowel' as someone with Latin might suspect.
 
 
 
[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.
[PCR]
And what is clever about being consistently rude?
 
 
 
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.
[PCR]
What I meant was that Polish will never be a requirement for an advanced degree because so few things of general interest to the world are written in Polish; and, as a consequence, few scholars read or speak it. Anything of larger interest would be translated into German, French, English, or Russian to enable a wider readership. I am so sorry if you are uncomfortable with the facts of life.
 
Monolingualism will not be an American problem for long with so many Spanish-speaking immigrants who evidently are inclined to maintain their language in the US.
 
As for Guillaume's point, is it better to have one language with which scholars from many countries can communicate, or haggle over whether that language should be French, Polish, or English?
 
Commerce and entertainment have broadened the base of English ***without any intention*** of English-speakers to do so; by default, English is the world language. However, I would have no problem if history had happened differently, and another language had the advantages of world communication that English has now.
 
 
<snip>
 
 
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.
 
 
[PCR]
Well, it might be relaxing for you not to have to write in English.
 
Do they still speak German in Poznan?
 
 
Pat
 

PATRICK 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)