> 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 gramma...@att.net
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
>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'.
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:
Koraga muke ‘bud', Tamil mukir ‘to 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!!
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 15:07:31 GMT, "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?
> 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.
> > 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 gramma...@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/.
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.
> 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 gramma...@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! -- Peter T. Daniels gramma...@att.net
Rich Sondheim wrote: > 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.
Andrew Dalby wrote: > Peter T. Daniels wrote: > > Rich Sondheim 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/.
> 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.
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.
> > 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.
"Neeraj Mathur" <neemat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message ... > "Rich Sondheim" <sondhei...@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" <neemat...@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?
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@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.
Aha! folk etymology! -- Peter T. Daniels gramma...@att.net
> Douglas G. Kilday wrote: > > "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@worldnet.att.net> wrote ... > > > Andrew Dalby wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > > 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.
> 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" <fufl...@chorus.net> wrote ... > > "Neeraj Mathur" <neemat...@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.
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.
Peter T. Daniels wrote: > Douglas G. Kilday wrote:
> > "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@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.
> Aha! folk etymology!
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).
> The interesting thing is that there is a Dravidian root muk- which > refers to buds:
> Koraga muke 'bud', Tamil mukir 'to 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)
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.
> 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.
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 ...
> > 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.
