Skt mukta Etymology
Rich Sondheim
relationship between Skt mukta 'pearl' and Dravidian mutta 'pearl'.
Thanks
Peter T. Daniels
>
> I was wondering if anyone could tell me, or speculate on, the
> relationship between Skt mukta 'pearl' and Dravidian mutta 'pearl'.
With no more information than that, it looks like a borrowing into
"Dravidian" (because assimilation of k to t is a lot more likely than tt
turning into kt). But Sanskrit did not yet exist at the time there was a
Common Dravidian language, so any comparison is invalid.
What are the forms in Dravidian languages, and what are the forms in
Indic, Indo-Iranian, and Indo-European?
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
izzy
Impure speculation from izzy:
Nacre is often called mother-of-pearl, but it seems that nacre
originally referred to the type of mollusk that contained a pearl.
Presumably this "mother" was derived from the matrix (mother) in which
the pearl develops. But it may have been influenced by, if not derived
from, mukta/mutta.
At any rate, look for mollusc/murex and other SHELL terms.
The Semitic term that seems closest is mem-aiyin-tet-peh-taf (or heh)
... with meanings such as mantle, cloak, wrap-around, shell. The
mollusc/mollusk has a mantle.
In freshwater cultured pearls, cutting the mantle is enough to induce
the nacre
secretion that produces a pearl -- an irritant doesn't have to be
inserted.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/question630.htm
See also
http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~eps2/wisc/Lect17.html
ciao,
izzy
Neeraj Mathur
"Rich Sondheim" <sondh...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:o9d6v1pbbt45olab3...@4ax.com...
>I was wondering if anyone could tell me, or speculate on, the
> relationship between Skt mukta 'pearl' and Dravidian mutta 'pearl'.
Sanskrit 'mukta' is in origin the past participle of the verb 'muc' meaning
'to free, to loosen'; thus something which is 'mukta' has been freed or
liberated - an appropriate description for a pearl, recovered from the
clench of the oyster shell. From there it could be borrowed into Dravidian
languages as a noun; given the assimilation, it's possible that it was
borrowed not from Sanskrit directly but from some kind of Middle Indo-Aryan
Prakrit, where 'mukta' would normally become 'mutta'.
As for 'muc' itself, the root is Indo-European; it's connected apparently
with the Latin verb 'mungo' (which I've never heard of before, but would fit
since 'muc' also takes the nasal infix present, to give 'muncati') and
'mucus'.
Neeraj Mathur
Rich Sondheim
Kannada mutya;
Telugu muttiyamu, muttemu, mutyamu muttam;
Toda mut
Pali Prakrit mutta--
The interesting thing is that there is a Dravidian root muk- which
refers to buds:
Koraga muke 礎ud', Tamil mukir 奏o appear in the form of a bud; to
bud, put forth buds, appear, fold or close up as a flower in petals,
shut as the eyes; display, cause to appear, bear, bring forth; mokku
flower-bud; bud-like designs on saris; Malayalim. mukir a sprout, bud.
Kannada. mugi to contract, shut up or close as a flower, close, shut
as eyes,mouth, etc., join the two hands with the open palms brought
together; mugisu to close (a flower; tr.); mugul. to close or shut as
the eyelids, bud, sprout; mugul., mugal.u bud, opening bud; mugul.cu
to cause to contract, close or shut; shut; moggu, mogge, maggu a bud.
(Burroughs 4893)
This suggests that pearls were considered buds, These words may be
cognate with Gk muein.
>Sanskrit 'mukta' is in origin the past participle of the verb 'muc' meaning
'>to free, to loosen'; thus something which is 'mukta' has been freed
> or liberated - an appropriate description for a pearl, recovered
>from the clench of the oyster shell. From there it could be borrowed
>into Dravidian languages as a noun; given the assimilation, it's
>possible that it was borrowed not from Sanskrit directly but from
>some kind of Middle Indo-Aryan Prakrit, where 'mukta' would normally
> become 'mutta'.
Tulugu muke man who snuffles or speaks through the nose!!
Neeraj Mathur
> The interesting thing is that there is a Dravidian root muk- which
> refers to buds:
>
[snip]
> This suggests that pearls were considered buds, These words may be
> cognate with Gk muein.
What we need to know is whether or not there is a derivational suffix in
Dravidian -ta, and whether or not the -kt- cluster in Dravidian could
yield -tt- in all of the languages you have cited. If there is a clear
morphological and phonological process which would allow this, your
suggestion that pearls are related to buds is possible; if there is no such
process, then we will have to consider it a borrowing from Middle Indo-Aryan
(Pali or Prakrit), where the processes are clear and set out by myself in
another post.
Neeraj Mathur
Andrew Dalby
Peter, you were afraid someone would say this, I'm sure. According to
Turner's /Comparative dictionary of IA languages/ (item 10152) mukta-
is a learned Sanskritization of the Middle Indo-Aryan mutta- (both with
macron over the a). The latter is apparently a loan from a Dravidian
language (Tamil muttu and muruntu 'etc.' are cited, with a reference to
Burrow's /Dravidian etymological dictionary/.
Another example of similar Sanskritization is (I believe) srngavera
'ginger', constructed in learned late Sanskrit on the basis of
Pali/Prakrit singivera, which actually didn't derive from Sanskrit but
appears to be a Dravidian loanword.
Andrew
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > Rich Sondheim wrote:
> > >
> > > I was wondering if anyone could tell me, or speculate on, the
> > > relationship between Skt mukta 'pearl' and Dravidian mutta 'pearl'.
> >
> > With no more information than that, it looks like a borrowing into
> > "Dravidian" (because assimilation of k to t is a lot more likely than tt
> > turning into kt). But Sanskrit did not yet exist at the time there was a
> > Common Dravidian language, so any comparison is invalid.
> >
> > What are the forms in Dravidian languages, and what are the forms in
> > Indic, Indo-Iranian, and Indo-European?
> > --
> > Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
>
> Peter, you were afraid someone would say this, I'm sure. According to
> Turner's /Comparative dictionary of IA languages/ (item 10152) mukta-
> is a learned Sanskritization of the Middle Indo-Aryan mutta- (both with
> macron over the a). The latter is apparently a loan from a Dravidian
> language (Tamil muttu and muruntu 'etc.' are cited, with a reference to
> Burrow's /Dravidian etymological dictionary/.
Aha! A hypercorrection!
(You could write a-macron (long a) as either a: or aa, or even â if that
doesn't have any other meaning in Indic studies.)
> Another example of similar Sanskritization is (I believe) srngavera
> 'ginger', constructed in learned late Sanskrit on the basis of
> Pali/Prakrit singivera, which actually didn't derive from Sanskrit but
> appears to be a Dravidian loanword.
Another hypercorrection!
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> I was wondering if anyone could tell me, or speculate on, the
> relationship between Skt mukta 'pearl' and Dravidian mutta 'pearl'.
It's [mUttU] in Tamil and [mUtt@] in Malayalam where [@] varies by the
context of the word; it ranges from a centralized [e] to a Japanese u.
In Dravidians' typical opinion, the Tamil word is the original and the
others are derived from it. If Malayalam and Tamil had got it from
Sanskrit, it would have been [mUktam] in Malayalam and it wouldn't have
been [mUttU] in Tamil.
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
In Tamil, [In^j^I] is ginger and [ve:rU] is root; [In^j^Ive:rU] is
"ginger root". [In^j^Ive:r@] in Malayalam.
[I] is a short vowel with the same quality as [i:] in the above
contexts. [r] is a tap in Malayalam and a light trill in Tamil.
Douglas G. Kilday
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote ...
> Andrew Dalby wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > Peter, you were afraid someone would say this, I'm sure. According to
> > Turner's /Comparative dictionary of IA languages/ (item 10152) mukta-
> > is a learned Sanskritization of the Middle Indo-Aryan mutta- (both with
> > macron over the a). The latter is apparently a loan from a Dravidian
> > language (Tamil muttu and muruntu 'etc.' are cited, with a reference to
> > Burrow's /Dravidian etymological dictionary/.
>
> Aha! A hypercorrection!
>
> (You could write a-macron (long a) as either a: or aa, or even â if that
> doesn't have any other meaning in Indic studies.)
>
> > Another example of similar Sanskritization is (I believe) srngavera
> > 'ginger', constructed in learned late Sanskrit on the basis of
> > Pali/Prakrit singivera, which actually didn't derive from Sanskrit but
> > appears to be a Dravidian loanword.
>
> Another hypercorrection!
Paretymological assimilation to <s'rn'ga-> 'horn, antler', on the basis of
fanciful resemblance of the shape of the ginger-root to an antler.
Douglas G. Kilday
"Neeraj Mathur" <neem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message ...
> "Rich Sondheim" <sondh...@comcast.net> wrote in message ...
>
> >I was wondering if anyone could tell me, or speculate on, the
> > relationship between Skt mukta 'pearl' and Dravidian mutta 'pearl'.
>
> Sanskrit 'mukta' is in origin the past participle of the verb 'muc'
meaning
> 'to free, to loosen'; thus something which is 'mukta' has been freed or
> liberated - an appropriate description for a pearl, recovered from the
> clench of the oyster shell. From there it could be borrowed into Dravidian
> languages as a noun; given the assimilation, it's possible that it was
> borrowed not from Sanskrit directly but from some kind of Middle
Indo-Aryan
> Prakrit, where 'mukta' would normally become 'mutta'.
>
> As for 'muc' itself, the root is Indo-European; it's connected apparently
> with the Latin verb 'mungo' (which I've never heard of before, but would
fit
> since 'muc' also takes the nasal infix present, to give 'muncati') and
> 'mucus'.
I don't like the idea that *meug- and *meuk- are variants. I prefer to see
both as independent extensions of *meu-.
Neeraj Mathur
"Douglas G. Kilday" <fuf...@chorus.net> wrote in message
news:43f3eeb8$1...@newspeer2.tds.net...
>> with the Latin verb 'mungo' (which I've never heard of before, but would
> fit
>> since 'muc' also takes the nasal infix present, to give 'muncati') and
>> 'mucus'.
>
> I don't like the idea that *meug- and *meuk- are variants. I prefer to
> see
> both as independent extensions of *meu-.
Do you need *meug- at all? Is it possible to have progressive voicing
assimilation from the nasal infix?
Neeraj Mathur
Peter T. Daniels
Aha! folk etymology!
Douglas G. Kilday
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote ...
> Douglas G. Kilday wrote:
> > "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote ...
> > > Andrew Dalby wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [...]
> > > >
> > > > 'ginger', constructed in learned late Sanskrit on the basis of
> > > > Pali/Prakrit singivera, which actually didn't derive from Sanskrit
but
> > > > appears to be a Dravidian loanword.
> > >
> > > Another hypercorrection!
> >
> > Paretymological assimilation to <s'rn'ga-> 'horn, antler', on the basis
of
> > fanciful resemblance of the shape of the ginger-root to an antler.
>
> Aha! folk etymology!
Yes. And an additional one in Middle English, with <gingebre(e)d> 'cake
flavored with ginger' (from ML <gingibratum>) reinterpreted as a compound of
'bread', leading to the current form <ginger>. Otherwise it would still be
<gingiver>.
Douglas G. Kilday
"Neeraj Mathur" <neem...@hotmail.com> wrote ...
> "Douglas G. Kilday" <fuf...@chorus.net> wrote ...
> > "Neeraj Mathur" <neem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message ...
> >> As for 'muc' itself, the root is Indo-European; it's connected
apparently
> >> with the Latin verb 'mungo' (which I've never heard of before, but
would
> > fit
> >> since 'muc' also takes the nasal infix present, to give 'muncati') and
> >> 'mucus'.
> >
> > I don't like the idea that *meug- and *meuk- are variants. I prefer to
> > see
> > both as independent extensions of *meu-.
>
> Do you need *meug- at all? Is it possible to have progressive voicing
> assimilation from the nasal infix?
I believe we need *meug- for Latin <mu:gil> 'mullet, fish which feeds on
organic matter in mud' (most likely borrowed from Sabine or Oscan, given its
nom. sg. -l not -lis) and Old Norse <mykr> 'muck'. I am not comfortable
invoking progressive voicing assimilation from the nasal infix in Lat.
<e:mungere>, since this did not happen in <vincere>, nor in <uncus> and
<mancus> which appear to have inherited -Nk- from PIE without assimilating
it to -Ng- anywhere along the way.
In my opinion the primary sense of *meu- was not 'damp, wet' but
specifically 'slimy, miry', and the extended (or as I prefer "postfixed"
forms) *meus-, *meuk-, *meug-, and the like all had distinct usages, since
the PIE root-extensions or "postfixes" functioned much like the prefixes in
our familiar Greek, Italic, and Germanic languages.
Andrew Dalby
Douglas G. Kilday wrote:
> I believe we need *meug- for Latin <mu:gil> 'mullet, fish which feeds on
> organic matter in mud' (most likely borrowed from Sabine or Oscan, given its
> nom. sg. -l not -lis)
Is this etymology yours, or already published? I like it.
Andrew
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
So it seems since the word seems to be of Dravidian provenance; (ver
means root in Dravidian languages and doesn't mean anything in Indic
languages AFAIK).
Franz Gnaedinger
Rich Sondheim wrote:
> Pearl Tamil. Malayalim. Kannada. muttu;
> Kannada mutya;
> Telugu muttiyamu, muttemu, mutyamu muttam;
> Toda mut
> Pali Prakrit mutta--
>
> The interesting thing is that there is a Dravidian root muk- which
> refers to buds:
>
> bud, put forth buds, appear, fold or close up as a flower in petals,
> shut as the eyes; display, cause to appear, bear, bring forth; mokku
> flower-bud; bud-like designs on saris; Malayalim. mukir a sprout, bud.
> Kannada. mugi to contract, shut up or close as a flower, close, shut
> as eyes,mouth, etc., join the two hands with the open palms brought
> together; mugisu to close (a flower; tr.); mugul. to close or shut as
> the eyelids, bud, sprout; mugul., mugal.u bud, opening bud; mugul.cu
> to cause to contract, close or shut; shut; moggu, mogge, maggu a bud.
> (Burroughs 4893)
Let me go for a piece of deep etymology and propose a pair
of hypothetical Magdalenian words:
MUC or MOC --- prey, hunted animal, bull
CUM or COM --- swarm of hunters
You may know those rock paintings where a large animal
- a giant bull - is surrounded by a swarm of ant-like hunters.
The bull is then the MUC, and the hunters are the CUM.
My Magdalenian MUC would survive in several Greek words.
Mykaomay for to roar, bellow, low, boom, crash, crack, creak,
bang - these words alone evoke the melée of a hunting battle.
Myktaer for nostril - you can imagine the attacked bull snorting.
Mykos for mushroom, knob of a door, and the black end of
a wick - here the word stays for a dense round form. In our
dialect we have the word Mocke or Mocka we use for a strong
round person, animal, or object. For example the opera singer
Luciano Pavarotti is a Mocka - luckily for him just hunted by
journalists and those who want an autogram. As children we
bought rather big round lollipops at the kiosk of our public pool
called Föiver Mocka. Mocka is also a word for a breeding pig.
Deriding Muck-a-Muck may be a form of MUC. Also mucho
man, in German Macker. The older a word the wider its range.
CUM survived in ancient Greek kyma for sea wave - you can
see the hunters attacking in a surging wave. A derivate of
CUM was heap, a heap of stones - picture a group of grim
stony-faced hunters. English cum is archaic for come - one
may imagine how a hunter calls the other ones: Cum, cum,
gather around me, let's form a cum, let's go hunting! Latin
cum means with - one hunter with the other ones, all together.
A compact formation is the closest a group of individuals can
come standing together.
Now for Sanskrit muktaa, pearl. Muktaatman means freed,
released. Muc means to free, liberate. Consider our breeding
Mocka giving birth to her young ones, how the little but fairly
massive round piggies are released form the Mocka ... MUC
from MUC. The meaning of bud and sprout may be explained
the same way: freed from mother earth, if you like. Muck and
Mutt also have the meaning of dirt, of earth, of the fertile ground.
And that which comes out of it, in a clean round form, is again
MUC, whether a small but massive round piggie, or, in the case
of Sanskrit muktaa, a pearl released from a shell.
Regards Franz Gnaedinger www.seshat.ch
Franz Gnaedinger
and some more deductions from a pair of hypothetical
Magdalenian words (at the end):
One of the meanings of ancient Greek mykaes is not
knob of a door, but knob of a sword --- MUC and CUM
as knob and fingers around them. The French equivalent
of mykaeomai is mugir for to low, bellow. German for to
low is muhen. The sound produced by the lowing animal
is called Muh, testifying to a partly onomatopoetical
origin of MUC, MU-, while the ending -C may indicate
the massive strong round body of the bull attacked by
the Magdalenian swarm of hunters CUM. German Kumpan
is a colleague among soldiers, old usage. Kumpan is used
today for a business associate, informal and rare. A Kumpel
is a colleague among miners. English company would be
another survivor of Magdalenian CUM. The inverse MUC
survives in another word of our medieval dialect, mucken.
We use it as a noun, in the negative sense: not making
a Mucks, not moving at all, being bockstill, quiet as a buck
sensing the potentially fatal human presence. A schoolboy
who neglected his homework does not make a Mucks in
the class forasmuch as not to attract the preying eyes
of his teacher ...
Regards Franz Gnaedinger www.seshat.ch
Douglas G. Kilday
"Andrew Dalby" <akd...@hotmail.com> wrote ...
> Douglas G. Kilday wrote:
>
> > I believe we need *meug- for Latin <mu:gil> 'mullet, fish which feeds on
> > organic matter in mud' (most likely borrowed from Sabine or Oscan, given
its
> > nom. sg. -l not -lis)
>
> Is this etymology yours, or already published? I like it.
It is already published. Pokorny lists <mu:gil> 'Schleimfisch' under his
*meug-(2), and as noted I agree with this, but I think <mu:cus> comes from
an independently extended *meuk-. His lemma *meug-(2) is a bit of a
grab-bag otherwise, with *(s)meugh- and the dubious *meukh- appearing there
as well. He does not assign <mu:gil> to P-Italic, but in my opinion the
nom. sg. in -l gives it away. Oscan borrowed Lat. <aedi:lis> in the form
<aídil> (not native Oscan, which would have -f- not -d-), and Sabine <ausel>
'the Sun' is cited as the basis for the gentilicium <Aurelius>. (The
opinion of some scholars that <ausel> results from tabu-deformation of
*<sawel> must be emphatically rejected; it clearly represents an epithet
'shining' from *awes-, *aus-.) I regard <pugil> as a loanword from Oscan,
and <vigil> as a probable loanword from Sabine.