World and folk etymology
Dušan Vukotić
title "Folk Etymology". On the page 448 he discussed the word 'world'
and "concluded" that world must be related to the English verb whirl;
i.e. a whirled world. He also mentioned that the people of Northampton
still have a phrase: "It'll be a world afore he's back!"
Anglo-Saxon "on worulda woruld" is equal to Latin "in secula
seculorum" (forever and ever) and it allegedly "explains" the
historical development of the word "world"; it may be said, of the
world which constantly whirls round and round.
The scientific opinion in this case is that the noun "world" is a
compound word: wer 'man' + ald 'age, old'. I do not find this much
convincing, because it sounds to me more folk-etymologically than some
"corrupted" and weird idea of a "secular" whirl-world.
DV
Fánaí Gaelach na nGleannta
> The scientific opinion in this case is that the noun "world" is a
> compound word: wer 'man' + ald 'age, old'. I do not find this much
> convincing, because...
...because you are not familiar with Icelandic.Case closed.
Harlan Messinger
If you've already got the comparison with "secula seculorum", which is a
reference to The Ages (yet evolved to denote the present World, in
contrast to the eternal Church), then what do you think is suspect about
an etymology based on "age"? OED: "In early use the word is found
frequently in Christian contexts, where it is often used ... to convey
the concept of post-classical Latin saeculum the temporal world and its
duration (see secular adj.)"
Forms found in Old English include "wiaralde" and "worulde".
"Were-" is also found in "werewolf" and "wergeld" = "man" + "value", the
value associated with a person of any particular standing, a concept
used, for example, in assessing damages in a homicide.
António Marques
But where does Welt enter the picture?
Harlan Messinger
OHG "weralt" > MHG "werelt" > "werlt" > "welt" > German "Welt".
Dušan Vukotić
Yes, it is a syncopated form of OHG we(ra)lt → we(r)lt → welt
DV
Dušan Vukotić
<h.usenetremovert...@gavelcade.com> wrote:
> On 1/9/2011 3:47 PM, Dušan Vukotić wrote:
>
> > At the end of the 19th century Smythe Palmer wrote a book under the
> > title "Folk Etymology". On the page 448 he discussed the word 'world'
> > and "concluded" that world must be related to the English verb whirl;
> > i.e. a whirled world. He also mentioned that the people of Northampton
> > still have a phrase: "It'll be a world afore he's back!"
> > Anglo-Saxon "on worulda woruld" is equal to Latin "in secula
> > seculorum" (forever and ever) and it allegedly "explains" the
> > historical development of the word "world"; it may be said, of the
> > world which constantly whirls round and round.
> > The scientific opinion in this case is that the noun "world" is a
> > compound word: wer 'man' + ald 'age, old'. I do not find this much
> > convincing, because it sounds to me more folk-etymologically than some
> > "corrupted" and weird idea of a "secular" whirl-world.
>
> If you've already got the comparison with "secula seculorum", which is a
> reference to The Ages (yet evolved to denote the present World, in
> contrast to the eternal Church), then what do you think is suspect about
> an etymology based on "age"? OED: "In early use the word is found
> frequently in Christian contexts, where it is often used ... to convey
> the concept of post-classical Latin saeculum the temporal world and its
> duration (see secular adj.)"
Latin seculum also means 'a hundred years, a century' and that word is
a cognate to sickle (or scythe). And the sickle is a hooked implement.
It means that the protoform of the word secul- was *keklo- (Lat.
cyclus; Gr. κύκλος 'circle', κυκλῶν 'cyclone, whirling round', κυκλέω
'move round or in a circle, whirl round').
pauljk
news:8ouvtd...@mid.individual.net...
I presume it is not cognate of a panslavic word for "world" (Russian "свет", Cz
"svět").
It is derived from old word meaning something like "bright", "white", "shiny",
"light".
Quite different from PIE *wer- "man".
pjk
John Atkinson
Languages is quite interesting (item 1.1). Just about every branch of
IE has different word(s) for "world", but lots of them are calques,
often associated with the spread of Christianity, and, earlier, Greek
philosophy. Just some of them:
Greek: kosmos (original meaning "(orderly) arrangement")
Latin: mundus (originally "women's ornaments, dress"; new meaning
calqued from Greek)
Germanic: ON: heimr (English "home"); miD-garDr; and verold
Celtic: domun (from "bottom, foundation")
Slavic: mirU (also "peace", translates Greek kosmos); světU (also
"light", via "realm of light"); Romanian has lume, calqued from Slavic
Baltic: pasaulis ("pa" under, "saule" sun)
John.
benl...@ihug.co.nz
> "Harlan Messinger" <h.usenetremovert...@gavelcade.com> wrote in message
There was a short thread on "light" = "world" in 2004. Christopher
Culver noted its occurrence in Hungarian and Romanian as well as
Slavic. I pointed out its occurrence in some Polynesian languages
(e.g. Maori /ao/ "daylight; world"). In the latter case it's by
contrast with the "underworld" = "night" (Maori /poo/).
Franz Gnaedinger
I trace English world back to Magdalenian BIR LAD,
BIR meaning fur, LAD meaning hill, together naming
the primeval hill in the cosmic fur of the goddess,
a term coined when millions of fur and leather bags
filled with earth where carried on to the limestone
outcrop of the Göbekli Tepe, thus creating an up to
five meters high earth mound on top of the rocky hill,
a dozen millennia ago. A memory of this may have
been kept on a clay tablet from the region
http://www.seshat.ch/home/tablets.GIF
You see plenty of bags containing a dot each,
and on top a wider bag with a hill and a sun
traveling over that hill within the bag. This emblem
may represent the Göbekli Tepe as hill of creation,
an idea suriving in the Egyptian pyramids as
symbols of the primeval hill out of which emerged
sun and sky (Ra and Nut) and the entire world.
The emblem can also be read as MUC DAL,
the sides of the bag becoming the horns of
a bull MUC, and the valley in between named
by DAL, inverse of LAD. While BIR LAD became
world, MUC DAL became mundus monde.
MUC DAL is also present in amygdala almond
Mandel, naming the form of the Paleolithic universal
tool of the hand axe or Faustkeil. Then it is present
in German Mond 'moon', since the moon was
represented by the moon bull. German Mund
'mouth' refers to the cave in the earth wherein
the setting moon disappeared, and Muttermund
to the opposite cave wherefrom the rising moon
appeared from (consider the Egyptian Nut, arching
herself over the earth she swallowed the setting sun
and gave birth to the sunchild in the morning).
The world would once have been seen as the
bull valley, for which there is ample evidence
in Celtic archaeology, and in the Indian worship
of the world bull. Etymology can't be done from
our vantage point alone, we really have to delve
and plunge into the ideas of the past.
BIR LAD could easily have given rise to whirl,
for you can whirl around a bag. Another derivative
involving BIR is BIR MAN, fur BIR right hand MAN,
he or she handling fur, working on fur, preparing
and cutting fur and stitching pieces of fur together
in tailoring clothes. BIR would later have given
way to something like weave, weave MAN woman.
The transition from handling fur to weaving would
confirm English whirl as a compound of BIR,
the BIR whool of the sheep whirled and spun
into a long thread that can be used for weaving.
Harlan Messinger
Because you say so?
> And the sickle is a hooked implement.
> It means that the protoform of the word secul- was *keklo- (Lat.
> cyclus; Gr. κύκλος 'circle', κυκλῶν 'cyclone, whirling round', κυκλέω
> 'move round or in a circle, whirl round').
Because you say so?
Harlan Messinger
> On Jan 9, 9:47 pm, Dušan Vukotić<dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> At the end of the 19th century Smythe Palmer wrote a book under the
>> title "Folk Etymology". On the page 448 he discussed the word 'world'
>> and "concluded" that world must be related to the English verb whirl;
>> i.e. a whirled world. He also mentioned that the people of Northampton
>> still have a phrase: "It'll be a world afore he's back!"
>> Anglo-Saxon "on worulda woruld" is equal to Latin "in secula
>> seculorum" (forever and ever) and it allegedly "explains" the
>> historical development of the word "world"; it may be said, of the
>> world which constantly whirls round and round.
>> The scientific opinion in this case is that the noun "world" is a
>> compound word: wer 'man' + ald 'age, old'. I do not find this much
>> convincing, because it sounds to me more folk-etymologically than some
>> "corrupted" and weird idea of a "secular" whirl-world.
>
> I trace English world back to Magdalenian BIR LAD,
> BIR meaning fur, LAD meaning hill, together naming
> the primeval hill in the cosmic fur of the goddess,
"The cosmic fur of the goddess"? Even for you, that's gibberish.
Dušan Vukotić
Ok. Maybe I am wrong; but I assume that seculum was understood as a
segment (clip) of time and therefore it was cut off from from the
whole (of eternity of time). If it is so, then the Latin saeculum must
be related to the Latin verb seco -are 'to cut' (cf. Serbo-Slavic
seći, sekao: pp. sekla, sekli 'to cut').
DV
Fánaí Gaelach na nGleannta
There is no such language as "Serbo-Slavic". There are different forms
of standardized Shtokavian. One of those is called Serbian.
Harlan Messinger
Ah, but it wasn't "seculum". It was "sæculum".
> If it is so, then the Latin saeculum must
So you knew that.
> be related to the Latin verb seco -are 'to cut' (cf. Serbo-Slavic
> seći, sekao: pp. sekla, sekli 'to cut').
Only if your idea is correct--but that's you developing your own folk
etymology! I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's purely conjectural.
I don't happen to know what the exchangeability between "e" and "æ" was
in Latin.
>
> DV
Peter T. Daniels
Depends on the era. Later on, it was just orthographic option.
Dušan Vukotić
> On 10/01/2011 01:53 PM, pauljk wrote:
>
Slavic světU (OSl. свѣтъ 'world') really seems to be a notion for
light, i.e. it comes from the Old Slavic verb свитати 'to dawn' (Serb.
svitati, Cz. svítat, Russ. светать; OSl. ). Also there are other
Slavic words as svetliti (Cz. svítit, Russ. светить 'shine, light,
beam, lamp, beacon'; Cz. světlo 'light', Russ. светло) and sveća
'candle' (Cz. svice, Russ. свеча).
But there is also a possibility that Slavic svetъ has been derived
form the same agglutinated protoform as Germanic world: *werl-gn ←
*bel-hr-gn. Of course, this in case if Germanic "world" is related to
the "round motion" ─ whirled. :)
I discussed this theme a few times earlier and I mentioned the Serbian
word 'vrlet' (wild area, untamed world) which is a cognate to the
Serbian verb vrljati 'to walk or go around aimlessly' (also known in a
s- prefixed form as švrljati). Here is still another verb in Serbian ─
vrludati 'to go zigzag, wriggle' and the noun vrludanje 'wriggle,
meander'. In addition, the Greek word sphere (σφαῖρᾰ 'globe, earth,
sphere') appeared to be cognate to Serbian švrljanje/vrludanje,
because it comes out from σφαιρόω 'to be curled up in a ball, to be
rounded' and it also may go back to the above-mentioned agglutinated
protoform.
In Slavic languages the word krivina (Cz. křivka, Russ. кривизна
'curve') is a metathesized *oblo-hre-hn → *kre-h-bl- or "oblo
kretanje" (a round motion) and it is a cognate to the noun obrtanje
'rotation, whirlabout' (Cz. obrátit 'turn around', Russ. оборот
'turn').
In order to understand an unusual and unexpected development of
thousands and thousands of IE words from the same speech-generating-
well I am going to mention the Serbian word svirala 'fife,
pipe' (Russ. свирель 'pipe'). Namely, svirala is related to the verb
svirati 'play on a musical instrument' and that verb (svirati play')
also means 'to blow' (wind); hence Serb. vihor 'whirl-wind, vortex,
wind', vijoriti se 'to soar, flutter'.
How to grasp that trumpet and Slavic truba (Serb. trubljenje
'fanfare', Russ. труба 'trumpet', Cz. trubka 'pipe, trumpet') are the
cognates with the above mentioned svirala 'wooden pipe, trumpet' and
the words obrtanje 'turning', krivljenje 'curving', vrljanje,
vrludanje 'zigzag movement', vrtenje 'turning, spinning', vreteno
'spindle, mandrel'.
Finally, Slavic svetlo 'light' is derived from the same protoform as
krivina 'curve' or Greek sphere with a number of metathesis, where the
primary meaning is rotation or turning around. And even svetlo (from
*xer-bl-hn → *s[r]velto; cf. Slavic solnce → sunce 'sun', from
*su[r]lnce; Skr. sūryabhā 'bright as the sun', syūna 'the sun', sūrya
'the sun'). Obrtanje 'rotation' is an immanent characteristic of the
light and the whole universe. Everything comes and goes in circles.
benl...@ihug.co.nz
In the second edition of Watkins (2000), he derives saeculum from *sai-
tlo-, suffixed form of *sai- (oh all right *s@2e@1i-) "to bind, tie".
The semantics may be less than obvious, but he explains it as
successive generations being bound or tied together.
There's also a little point-of-interest box where he says that the
Hittite form of this root gives us the earliest attested IE word,
namely iSHiul 'contract', found as a loanword in Akkadian in the 19th
century BCE.
Ross Clark
Dušan Vukotić
There is a Serbian word sagnuti 'to bow, bend', which may somehow be
related to *sek- (cut): Even English sit appeared to be a cognate to
Serbo-Slavic sesti, sedeti 'sit down'. It may not be by accident that
Latin secula means 'scythe' (OE sicol, sicel). From its side, saddle
is a bent area (notched). The question is if seculum is related to
cyclus (Sp. siglos 'age'; a life cycle: Du. tijdkring 'a time
circle'); I think it must be. Cycle is a sliced "piece" (cut) of time,
process or something else abstract.
Following the above logic it seems that seculum originated from te IE
root *kw(e)kwl-o- (cf. sequel, sequence etc.).
DV
Franz Gnaedinger
<h.usenetremovert...@gavelcade.com> wrote:
>
> "The cosmic fur of the goddess"? Even for you, that's gibberish.
Between Christmas 2008 and New Year 2008/9
I reconstructed the Göbekli Tepe myth of origin
from the hieroglyphic inscription on the 'throat'
of the female central pillar and from the peculiar
bucranium on the 'throat' of the male central pillar
of the big, 11,6000 years old stone pillar temple D
on the Göbekli Tepe, temple of creation
http://www.seshat.ch/home/gt01.GIF
Here again, in a concise version, two years later:
The fire giver PIR GID who had the say ) or L
or )OG or LOG called out to her sister the fur giver
BIR GID. This one took her cosmic fur and heaved
the primeval hill out of the primeval ocean, BIR LAD,
hill LAD in the fur BIR. Now PIR GID called out to
her sister the fertility giver BRI GID. This one shaped
the heap of clay to a ring, thus separating the earth
AC and the sky CA, the earth being present in the
ring, and the sky in the hollow of the ring, and she
planted her seeds of life in the ring. In the hollow
appeared a male face, AAR RAA NOS, mind NOS
of the one composed of air AAR and light RAA
http://www.seshat.ch/home/ouranos.JPG
http://www.seshat.ch/home/tablets.GIF
GIS BAL CA MmOS, the gesturing hot(headed
and -blooded) offspring of the sky, broke the ring
in two halves, flattened them, and thus formed the
world as we know it, earth below, heaven above,
setting free AAR RAA NOS. Hereupon AD DA MAN,
he who draws channels with his right hand MAN
and makes water flow in an orderly fashion, toward
AD one place while coming from DA another place,
drained the marshes. PIR GID was well pleased
with all the work that went on, she lit the moon eye
and the sun eye of AARR RAA NOS, and warmed
the earth, whereupon the seeds planted by BRI GID
sprang to life, animals of every kind emerged from
clefts and niches in the rock and since then populate
the land and water and air. Finally, PIR GID hung
her torch of life PIR SAI into the sky, where it can
still be seen in Algol in Perseus, and retired into
her beautiful cave in the Underworld, her fire
erupting from time to time in a volcano. PIR GID
and BIR GID and BRI GID, ancient triple goddess
going back to Paleolithic times, became the Celtic
Brigit. BIR LAD became English world. AAR RAA NOS
became Greek Ouranos and Sanskrit Varuna and is
present in many valleys in western Europe, Val d'Aran,
Arundel, or in the Swiss Val d'Hérens, a valley being
a hollow filled with air and light. GIS BAL CA MmOS
became GISh.BIL.GA.MISh Gilgamesh and Baal.
AD DA MAN became Adam. AC CA in personalized
form became Hawwa Eve, mother of life. ) or L or
)OG or LOG became El or Elohim, Lord, logos, Allah.
The hieroglyphic inscription on the 'throat' of the female
central pillar of temple D - )OG BIR AC CA or LOG
BIR AC CA - became Genesis 1:1. The original ring
of AC CA gave way to the hieroglyph of the lying H,
the horizontal bars representing the earth AC and
the sky CA, the slim vertical bar indicating the
exchanges between earth and sky, especially prayers
for rain and the rising smoke of sacrificial fires
imploring rain symbolized by snakes heading skyward,
and falling rain rewarding the prayers and sacrificial
fires symbolized by snakes heading downward.
The snake-water symbolism allows to consider Latin
aqua 'water' a derivative of AC CA. The Egyptians
remembered a Syrian province by the name of aqa.
AC CA understood as place means: where earth
and sky are meeting. In personalized form it accounts
for Hawwa Eve, the mother of life, and for the Indo-
European earth goddess akka (Julius Pokorny),
while the inverse form CA AC would explain the
Greek Gaia. On a bank of the younger lion pillar
temple on the Göbekli Tepe was carved the relief
of a goddess, her hairdo in the form of a mushroom
evoking a rain cloud, her macrolabiae the amniotic
water, another symbol for the water of life, for rain.
AC CA is also present in German Acker 'field',
and, in polished forms, in suffixes indicating places,
Gallo-Roman -acum, then -ingen -iken -ikon.
Harlan Messinger
> On Jan 10, 12:37 pm, Harlan Messinger
> <h.usenetremovert...@gavelcade.com> wrote:
>>
>> "The cosmic fur of the goddess"? Even for you, that's gibberish.
>
> Between Christmas 2008 and New Year 2008/9
> I reconstructed the Göbekli Tepe myth of origin
> from the hieroglyphic inscription on the 'throat'
> of the female central pillar and from the peculiar
> bucranium on the 'throat' of the male central pillar
> of the big, 11,6000 years old stone pillar temple D
> on the Göbekli Tepe, temple of creation
As I said, Franz makes stuff up. He calls it "reconstruction". And now
he'll complain that I'm responding at the meta-level rather than having
anything scientific to contribute, regardless of the number of times
he's been told that if he wants contributions of his to be discussed at
the scientific level, they have to be scientific, *capable* of being
discussed at the scientific level. He doesn't understand that, by
writing fantasy and pleading for it to be treated as science, he's
responsible for his own predicament. And he'll also likely respond with
another outpouring of fantasies, because he believes that producing more
of the same sort of ramblings that have already been criticized will
convince people to change their minds.
[snip]
António Marques
> Just about every branch of IE has different word(s) for "world", but lots
> of them are calques, often associated with the spread of Christianity,
> and, earlier, Greek philosophy. Just some of them:
>
> (...)
> Celtic: domun (from "bottom, foundation")
Isn't the celtic supposed to be *bitu (with whatever meaning)?
John Atkinson
Yep, *bitu is the ancestor of Irish bith (the inhabited world, mankind,
this world in contrast to the next), Welsh byd, Old Cornish bit, Breton bed.
*dob-no (OIrish domun, also Gaulish) means more the physical world,
Cognate with Church Slavonic dUno, bottom; and English deep.
I did say I was listing "just some of them". There's quite a few more
in Buck, with various connotations (four pages in all).
J.
Fánaí Gaelach na nGleannta
In Irish, there are domhan (< domun), which is the modern word, and
bith, which is only found in idiomatic expressions. I am not an
etymologist, but to me domhan looks very much the same as domhain
'deep'. Bith could be related to bí, bíonn, bheith, bheadh, beidh
etc., to be.
John Atkinson
Right
> Bith could be related to bí, bíonn, bheith, bheadh, beidh
> etc., to be.
Apparently not. Buck says it's cognate with Gk bios and Latin vivus --
which would also make it cognate with Eng quick, and derive from PIE
*gweih3-, to live.
The "be" words, in Irish as elsewhere, come from *bheu-, become, come
into being -- which M&A say also gives OIr both, hut (> Scots English
bothie, I presume) -- does the Old Irish come via Old Norse boD, like
English booth?
John.
Harlan Messinger
I expect that the last sentence is true. Latin "sedeo, sedere, sedi,
sessus" = sit, modern German "setzen" = English "set", "sitzen"
(preterite "sass") = English "sit", Lithuanian "sėdėti".
Serbian is a Slavic language. I have no idea what you think
"Serbo-Slavic" means.
> It may not be by accident that
> Latin secula means 'scythe' (OE sicol, sicel). From its side, saddle
> is a bent area (notched).
Where did "saddle" come into this all of a sudden? You bring it up out
of nowhere, and then you don't mention it again afterwards.
> The question
From this point on you're back to forcing things to fit together to
support one of your pet theories (since you want nearly everything to go
back to circles or clouds).
> is if seculum is related to
> cyclus (Sp. siglos 'age'; a life cycle: Du. tijdkring 'a time
> circle'); I think it must be.
Why must it be? What is so imperative about this? Have you considered
thatthe initial "c" in "cyclus" was pronounced [k] (Greek "κύκλος",
"kyklos") until after the collapse of the Roman empire?
> Cycle is a sliced "piece" (cut) of time,
"Cyclus" meant "circle" which has nothing to do with slices of time.
> process or something else abstract.
> Following the above logic it seems that seculum originated from te IE
> root *kw(e)kwl-o- (cf. sequel, sequence etc.).
Sorry, your "logic" isn't logical. "Comparing" "sequel", "sequence",
etc., demonstrates nothing; as usual, you say "compare" without giving
the slightest indication what the people you're asking to compare things
are supposed to be getting out of the comparison.
Dušan Vukotić
> In the second edition of Watkins (2000), he derives saeculum from *sai-
> tlo-, suffixed form of *sai- (oh all right *s@2e@1i-) "to bind, tie".
> The semantics may be less than obvious, but he explains it as
> successive generations being bound or tied together.
> Ross Clark
Macbain mentioned Irish saoghal 'world, age, life' (OIr. saigul.
saegul); from Latin saeculum. He also added that it evolved from the
IE root *sai-tlo(m)-. I can not understand how he did come to this
conclusion. I think that dentals belong to the "younger layer" of
phonemes in comparison to velars.
BTW I couldn't find that reference in the Watkins dictionary (Third
edition)
DV
António Marques
> On 12/01/2011 12:08 AM, Fánaí Gaelach na nGleannta wrote:
>> On 11 tammi, 14:12, António Marques<antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
>>> John Atkinson wrote (10-01-2011 05:49):
>>>
>>>> Just about every branch of IE has different word(s) for "world",
>>>> but lots of them are calques, often associated with the spread of
>>>> Christianity, and, earlier, Greek philosophy. Just some of them:
>>>
>>>> (...) Celtic: domun (from "bottom, foundation")
>>>
>>> Isn't the celtic supposed to be *bitu (with whatever meaning)?
>>
>> In Irish, there are domhan (< domun), which is the modern word, and
>> bith, which is only found in idiomatic expressions.
Ok. Breton 'bed' seems to cover everything. _Ar Bed Keltiek_ 'The Celtic
World', _ebed_ 'in-[the]-world' -> 'no/none' (a similar evolution to that of
french _pas_, which btw is also mirrored by breton _ked_, usually written
<ket>).
>> I am not an etymologist, but to me domhan looks very much the same as
>> domhain 'deep'.
>
> Right
Offhand I can't think of a breton cognate.
António Marques
> Dušan Vukotić wrote:
>> (...) Serbo-Slavic (...)
>
> (...) I have no idea what you think "Serbo-Slavic" means. (...)
Maybe it's to distinguish it from Czecho-Slavic and Russo-Slavic.
Dušan Vukotić
wrote:
From *dubno- 'world, deep' (OIr. domun, Gaulish Dumnorix 'World
king'). Of course, this may raise some questions because domhan
resembles to Serbo-Slavic domaćin 'host', Slavic dom 'home', Latin
dominium, dominus 'lord'. Nevertheless, these words (also) were
derived from the similar protobasis *ho-bl-(h)na- (Serb. oblina
'plumpness', debljina 'dickness, fatness' → *gu-bl-(h)no- dub(lj)ina
'depth' (cf. Russ. глубина 'depth, deepness').
DV
Dušan Vukotić
<hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > There is a Serbian word sagnuti 'to bow, bend', which may somehow be
> > related to *sek- (cut): Even English sit appeared to be a cognate to
> > Serbo-Slavic sesti, sedeti 'sit down'.
>
> I expect that the last sentence is true. Latin "sedeo, sedere, sedi,
> sessus" = sit, modern German "setzen" = English "set", "sitzen"
> (preterite "sass") = English "sit", Lithuanian "sėdėti".
> Serbian is a Slavic language. I have no idea what you think
> "Serbo-Slavic" means.
I prefer this name instead of Serbo-Croatian or South-Slavic. During
the 19th century there were two Neoshtokavian dialects: Serbian and
Slavic (Slovinski, Slavonski), while Croatian was Kajkavian, a dialect
of Slovenian.
> > It may not be by accident that
> > Latin secula means 'scythe' (OE sicol, sicel). From its side, saddle
> > is a bent area (notched).
>
> Where did "saddle" come into this all of a sudden? You bring it up out
> of nowhere, and then you don't mention it again afterwards.
Saddle seems to be named like that because of its "notched" form
> > The question
>
> From this point on you're back to forcing things to fit together to
> support one of your pet theories (since you want nearly everything to go
> back to circles or clouds).
You are right here. Maybe I am obsessed with circles and clouds :)
> > is if seculum is related to
> > cyclus (Sp. siglos 'age'; a life cycle: Du. tijdkring 'a time
> > circle'); I think it must be.
>
> Why must it be? What is so imperative about this? Have you considered
> thatthe initial "c" in "cyclus" was pronounced [k] (Greek "κύκλος",
> "kyklos") until after the collapse of the Roman empire?
Of course, was there anyone here who wouldn't know it? Did I not
mention *kw(e)kwl-o- as a "common source"? What about Spanish and
French siglos/siècle?
> > Cycle is a sliced "piece" (cut) of time,
>
> "Cyclus" meant "circle" which has nothing to do with slices of time.
I made here an in abstracto comparison... In Serbian kriška 'slice' is
related to krug 'circle'; okrug 'district, region'
> > process or something else abstract.
> > Following the above logic it seems that seculum originated from te IE
> > root *kw(e)kwl-o- (cf. sequel, sequence etc.).
>
> Sorry, your "logic" isn't logical. "Comparing" "sequel", "sequence",
> etc., demonstrates nothing; as usual, you say "compare" without giving
> the slightest indication what the people you're asking to compare things
> are supposed to be getting out of the comparison.
Maybe I am not able to express my thoughts properly and in an
understandable way. Sorry.
DV
António Marques
> On Jan 11, 4:29 pm, Harlan Messinger
> <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Serbian is a Slavic language. I have no idea what you think
>> "Serbo-Slavic" means.
>
> I prefer this name instead of Serbo-Croatian or South-Slavic.
How does one say South-CENTRAL-Slavic in Serbian?
Dušan Vukotić
Srednje-južno-slovenski
António Marques
Хвала
Dušan Vukotić
Por nada :)
Peter T. Daniels
I feel an Abbott & Costello routine coming on
Peter T. Daniels
Don't forget Baltic Latvian.
Harlan Messinger
> On Jan 11, 4:29 pm, Harlan Messinger
> <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>> There is a Serbian word sagnuti 'to bow, bend', which may somehow be
>>> related to *sek- (cut): Even English sit appeared to be a cognate to
>>> Serbo-Slavic sesti, sedeti 'sit down'.
>> I expect that the last sentence is true. Latin "sedeo, sedere, sedi,
>> sessus" = sit, modern German "setzen" = English "set", "sitzen"
>> (preterite "sass") = English "sit", Lithuanian "sėdėti".
>
>> Serbian is a Slavic language. I have no idea what you think
>> "Serbo-Slavic" means.
>
> I prefer this name instead of Serbo-Croatian or South-Slavic.
If we all went around making up our own names for things, we wouldn't be
able to communicate. If you call it Serbian, we'll know what you mean.
>
>>> It may not be by accident that
>>> Latin secula means 'scythe' (OE sicol, sicel). From its side, saddle
>>> is a bent area (notched).
>> Where did "saddle" come into this all of a sudden? You bring it up out
>> of nowhere, and then you don't mention it again afterwards.
>
> Saddle seems to be named like that because of its "notched" form
You still haven't indicated what that has to do with anything else you
were saying, nor what you mean when you say it "seems" to be named that
or what your basis is for saying so.
>
>>> The question
>> From this point on you're back to forcing things to fit together to
>> support one of your pet theories (since you want nearly everything to go
>> back to circles or clouds).
>
> You are right here. Maybe I am obsessed with circles and clouds :)
>
>>> is if seculum is related to
>>> cyclus (Sp. siglos 'age'; a life cycle: Du. tijdkring 'a time
>>> circle'); I think it must be.
>> Why must it be? What is so imperative about this? Have you considered
>> thatthe initial "c" in "cyclus" was pronounced [k] (Greek "κύκλος",
>> "kyklos") until after the collapse of the Roman empire?
>
> Of course, was there anyone here who wouldn't know it? Did I not
> mention *kw(e)kwl-o- as a "common source"? What about Spanish and
> French siglos/siècle?
What about them? Let me explain: the evolution of later Latin into the
Romance languages (sæculum > siglo, siècle) sheds no light whatsoever on
the relationship between "sæculum" and any other word from earlier Latin
or its predecessors. Languages aren't psychic, and cause-and-effect
isn't retroactive. So every time you introduce one of these "compares"
involving something that happened centuries after the relationship you
are trying to demonstrate, you aren't explaining anything, you're just
creating a distraction.
To be more specific regarding this case: [k] > [s] or [tS] in Romance
languages isn't any kind of evidence for a connection between [s] and
[k] in Latin or even earlier, 1,000 or more years earlier.
>>> Cycle is a sliced "piece" (cut) of time,
>> "Cyclus" meant "circle" which has nothing to do with slices of time.
>
> I made here an in abstracto comparison... In Serbian kriška 'slice' is
> related to krug 'circle';
Is it, or are you just, again, making this up? And then, you add the
element of time to that by yourself. You can play that kind of game all
day, but the more leaps you make, without evidence to back them up, the
less reason there is to take it seriously.
Brian M. Scott
<john...@iinet.net.au> wrote in
<news:4KqdnSggZfhM-rHQ...@westnet.com.au> in
sci.lang:
[...]
> The "be" words, in Irish as elsewhere, come from *bheu-,
> become, come into being -- which M&A say also gives OIr
> both, hut (> Scots English bothie, I presume) -- does
> the Old Irish come via Old Norse boD, like English
> booth?
That's actually OEN *bóð; OWN has <búð>. The word is a
derivative of OWN <búa>, OEN <bóa> 'to dwell', from PGmc.
*būanã 'to dwell' (the OEN vowel is an innovation); Ringe
gives the derivation *bHuh2-ye/o- > *būji- ~ *būja- 'be' >
PGmc. *būi ~ *būa- 'dwell'. Watkins makes the PGmc. verb
*bōwan from a lengthened o-grade, but I think that Ringe's
derivation makes more sense. Either way, it definitely has
a long vowel.
OIr. <both>, MWelsh <bod> 'dwelling, place', Cornish <bod>,
<bos>, and MBret. <Bot-> in place-names are from PCelt.
*butā 'place, dwelling, hut'; Matasović says that there's a
possible connection with Lith. <bùtas> 'home, house' <
*bHu-to-, but that the similarity may also be accidental.
Watkins seems to have no doubts, as he takes the PCelt. word
to be from *bHu-tā. At any rate, it definitely has a short
vowel.
It appears that they're probably cognate, but I can't see
either being a borrowing of the other.
Scots <bothy> is a bit problematic. Here's what the New
Supplement (2005) to the Scottish National Dictionary has to
say:
There are difficulties in the history of this now common
word, which is, curiously enough, attested in its earlier
instances in English writers, Holinshed, Pennant,
Lightfoot, and it may have originated in a confusion
between Gael. <bothan> [ˈbɔhɑn], a hut, and <Buith>
or its Eng. form <booth> [bøθ, buð], neither of which
would give the form bothy by reg. phonological
development. The word may indeed be of liter. orig.,
spreading into popular speech through e.g. the writings
of Hugh Miller who uses it frequently.
Brian
pauljk
"Dušan Vukotić" <dusan....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bef45178-97c3-4ff6...@l32g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
May be somehow related?
It's definitely not related at all to *sek-.
The panslavic root "gnuti" / "hnouti" / "гнуть" / "gániti" / "hnuć" / "gnuś"
(inherited from PIE) means to move / lift / tilt in various Slavic languages.
"sa-" / "se-" is a prefix meaning "downward movement".
Haven't we been through this zillions of times before?
A whole prefix+root cannot be etymologically related to a root alone!
> Even English sit appeared to be a cognate to
> Serbo-Slavic sesti, sedeti 'sit down'. It may not be by accident that
> Latin secula means 'scythe' (OE sicol, sicel). From its side, saddle
> is a bent area (notched). The question is if seculum is related to
> cyclus (Sp. siglos 'age'; a life cycle: Du. tijdkring 'a time
> circle'); I think it must be. Cycle is a sliced "piece" (cut) of time,
> process or something else abstract.
> Following the above logic it seems that seculum originated from te IE
> root *kw(e)kwl-o- (cf. sequel, sequence etc.).
Oh, common, everything is a circle, isn't it? :-)
pjk
pauljk
news:igi0ot$4oi$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
Ahh, I haven't thought of that. I thought it was to distinguish it
from Serbo-Germanic, Serbo-Romance, and Serbo-Turkic.
Oh, oh, oh, and Serbo-Basque of course.
pjk
pauljk
That means Central-South-Slavic, which actually makes more sense
than António's South-Central-Slavic which could not possibly
refer to any South Slavic language.
pjk
Harlan Messinger
In the beginning were Judy Collins and Joni Mitchell. And Judy Collins
from clouds created bows and flows of angel hair, and ice cream castles,
and feather canyons, and moons, and Junes, and ferris wheels. And Joni
Mitchell from circles created seasons and painted ponies and dreams. And
it was good. (Sorry, I really should get to bed.)
Dušan Vukotić
<hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > I prefer this name instead of Serbo-Croatian or South-Slavic.
>
> If we all went around making up our own names for things, we wouldn't be
> able to communicate. If you call it Serbian, we'll know what you mean.
After the disappearance of the Serbo-Croatian language and the
invention of the so-called Bosnian and Montenegrian I have no other
choice but to use this term (Serbo-Slavic) for the same language which
is spoken on the territory of the former Yugoslavia.
> > Saddle seems to be named like that because of its "notched" form
>
> You still haven't indicated what that has to do with anything else you
> were saying, nor what you mean when you say it "seems" to be named that
> or what your basis is for saying so.
First, I wondered if Serbian sagnuti 'to bend' is a cognate to Serbian
seći (from *seknuti, Lat. seco -are). The bent object gets the V-
shaped form as if it was cut into (Serb. usek 'cutting, notch, slash';
useći, usekao 'to cut into, incise'). Second, Latin sedeo -ere
(Serbian sedeti 'sit') means to sit down and take a bent position,
isn't it? So. it is not impossible that Latin seco and sedeo are
closely related (cf. Lat. sinuo -are 'to bend, curve'; sinus 'a curve,
fold'; probably from *signus; i.e. Lat. signo -are 'to impress, mark,
to inscribe').
> > Of course, was there anyone here who wouldn't know it? Did I not
> > mention *kw(e)kwl-o- as a "common source"? What about Spanish and
> > French siglos/siècle?
>
> What about them? Let me explain: the evolution of later Latin into the
> Romance languages (sæculum > siglo, siècle) sheds no light whatsoever on
> the relationship between "sæculum" and any other word from earlier Latin
> or its predecessors. Languages aren't psychic, and cause-and-effect
> isn't retroactive. So every time you introduce one of these "compares"
> involving something that happened centuries after the relationship you
> are trying to demonstrate, you aren't explaining anything, you're just
> creating a distraction.
How to explain the French word siècle; it sounds very similar to
English sickle (one derived from Latin seculum 'age, century' and the
other form secula 'sickel/scythe'). Latin obsequella 'compliance,
obedience', when written as obsecula (Plautus) is getting a different
but close meaning ─ 'devotee'. I believe hat siècle is a slice or
cutting of time (cf. segmentum 'cutting').
> To be more specific regarding this case: [k] > [s] or [tS] in Romance
> languages isn't any kind of evidence for a connection between [s] and
> [k] in Latin or even earlier, 1,000 or more years earlier.
The rules of orthography are just a matter of convention, is it not?
But it seems you forgot that Spanich /c/ is often pronounced as /s/.
> >>> Cycle is a sliced "piece" (cut) of time,
> >> "Cyclus" meant "circle" which has nothing to do with slices of time.
>
> > I made here an in abstracto comparison... In Serbian kriška 'slice' is
> > related to krug 'circle';
>
> Is it, or are you just, again, making this up? And then, you add the
> element of time to that by yourself. You can play that kind of game all
> day, but the more leaps you make, without evidence to back them up, the
> less reason there is to take it seriously.
I am trying to be constructive as possible, but I can not neutralize
your skepticism or prejudice. Serbian kriška comes from the verb is-
kružiti 'to take out from a circle', doesn't matter if you believe it
or not.
Dušan Vukotić
> > There is a Serbian word sagnuti 'to bow, bend', which may somehow be
> > related to *sek- (cut):
>
> May be somehow related?
> It's definitely not related at all to *sek-.
>
> The panslavic root "gnuti" / "hnouti" / "гнуть" / "gániti" / "hnuć" / "gnuś"
> (inherited from PIE) means to move / lift / tilt in various Slavic languages.
> "sa-" / "se-" is a prefix meaning "downward movement".
>
> Haven't we been through this zillions of times before?
> A whole prefix+root cannot be etymologically related to a root alone!
> Oh, common, everything is a circle, isn't it? :-)
>
> pjk
See my (newest) answer to Harlan.
Have you ever heard the word "seknutí" before? You are a fluent
speaker of Czech, aren't you? Iz that word se- prefixed or not?
> Oh, common, everything is a circle, isn't it? :-)
The whole cosmos is functioning in "circles". Isn't it the truth? :)
Consider its spherical form.
DV
Franz Gnaedinger
> On Jan 10, 12:37 pm, Harlan Messinger
>
> <h.usenetremovert...@gavelcade.com> wrote:
>
> > "The cosmic fur of the goddess"? Even for you, that's gibberish.
>
> Between Christmas 2008 and New Year 2008/9
> I reconstructed the Göbekli Tepe myth of origin
> from the hieroglyphic inscription on the 'throat'
> of the female central pillar and from the peculiar
> bucranium on the 'throat' of the male central pillar
> of the big, 11,6000 years old stone pillar temple D
> on the Göbekli Tepe, temple of creation
>
>
> Here again, in a concise version, two years later:
>
> The fire giver PIR GID who had the say ) or L
> or )OG or LOG called out to her sister the fur giver
> BIR GID. This one took her cosmic fur and heaved
> the primeval hill out of the primeval ocean, BIR LAD,
> hill LAD in the fur BIR. Now PIR GID called out to
> her sister the fertility giver BRI GID. This one shaped
> the heap of clay to a ring, thus separating the earth
> AC and the sky CA, the earth being present in the
> ring, and the sky in the hollow of the ring, and she
> planted her seeds of life in the ring. In the hollow
> appeared a male face, AAR RAA NOS, mind NOS
> of the one composed of air AAR and light RAA
>
> http://www.seshat.ch/home/ouranos.JPG
> http://www.seshat.ch/home/tablets.GIF
>
> GIS BAL CA MmOS, the gesturing hot(headed
> and -blooded) offspring of the sky, broke the ring
> in two halves, flattened them, and thus formed the
> world as we know it, earth below, heaven above,
> setting free AAR RAA NOS. Hereupon AD DA MAN,
> he who draws channels with his right hand MAN
> and makes water flow in an orderly fashion, toward
> AD one place while coming from DA another place,
> drained the marshes. PIR GID was well pleased
> with all the work that went on, she lit the moon eye
> and the sun eye of AARR RAA NOS, and warmed
> the earth, whereupon the seeds planted by BRI GID
> sprang to life, animals of every kind emerged from
> clefts and niches in the rock and since then populate
> the land and water and air. Finally, PIR GID hung
> her torch of life PIR SAI into the sky, where it can
> still be seen in Algol in Perseus, and retired into
> her beautiful cave in the Underworld, her fire
> erupting from time to time in a volcano. PIR GID
> and BIR GID and BRI GID, ancient triple goddess
> going back to Paleolithic times, became the Celtic
> Brigit. BIR LAD became English world. AAR RAA NOS
> became Greek Ouranos and Sanskrit Varuna and is
> present in many valleys in western Europe, Val d'Aran,
> Arundel, or in the Swiss Val d'Hérens, a valley being
> a hollow filled with air and light. GIS BAL CA MmOS
> became GISh.BIL.GA.MISh Gilgamesh and Baal.
> AD DA MAN became Adam. AC CA in personalized
> form became Hawwa Eve, mother of life. ) or L or
> )OG or LOG became El or Elohim, Lord, logos, Allah.
> The hieroglyphic inscription on the 'throat' of the female
> central pillar of temple D - )OG BIR AC CA or LOG
> BIR AC CA - became Genesis 1:1. The original ring
> of AC CA gave way to the hieroglyph of the lying H,
> the horizontal bars representing the earth AC and
> the sky CA, the slim vertical bar indicating the
> exchanges between earth and sky, especially prayers
> for rain and the rising smoke of sacrificial fires
> imploring rain symbolized by snakes heading skyward,
> and falling rain rewarding the prayers and sacrificial
> fires symbolized by snakes heading downward.
> The snake-water symbolism allows to consider Latin
> aqua 'water' a derivative of AC CA. The Egyptians
> remembered a Syrian province by the name of aqa.
> AC CA understood as place means: where earth
> and sky are meeting. In personalized form it accounts
> for Hawwa Eve, the mother of life, and for the Indo-
> European earth goddess akka (Julius Pokorny),
> while the inverse form CA AC would explain the
> Greek Gaia. On a bank of the younger lion pillar
> temple on the Göbekli Tepe was carved the relief
> of a goddess, her hairdo in the form of a mushroom
> evoking a rain cloud, her macrolabiae the amniotic
> water, another symbol for the water of life, for rain.
> AC CA is also present in German Acker 'field',
> and, in polished forms, in suffixes indicating places,
> Gallo-Roman -acum, then -ingen -iken -ikon.
In a way the cosmic fur of the goddess BIR GID
anticipates our modern fabric of spacetime.
I wouldn't be astonished if M-theorists found that
it isn't smooth but of a rather 'hairy' structure,
or that the world is a hologram generated by a
curved brane with attached strings, in other words
a cosmic 'fur' ... BIR meaning fur is an important
word; among its many derivatives are whool and
whorl and whirl, while BIR GID Brigit was also
the goddess of sheep. One really has to plunge
into the ancient ways of thinking when it comes to
etymology. English world seen as "whirl-world"
is plucking on the right strings but going astray,
the revolving earth is an insight of the 16th century
AD, while we have six thousand years old or even
older whorls from the Balkan.
PS. As Harlan delivered his own diagnosis
(a spouter of meta-statements unable to argue
on the scientific level) I don't have to say it meself.
yangg
>
> How to explain the French word siècle; it sounds very similar to
> English sickle (one derived from Latin seculum 'age, century' and the
> other form secula 'sickel/scythe'). Latin obsequella 'compliance,
> obedience', when written as obsecula (Plautus) is getting a different
> but close meaning ─ 'devotee'. I believe hat siècle is a slice or
> cutting of time (cf. segmentum 'cutting').
Your analysis is clearly a projection of the modern meaning as "one
hundred years" on the past.
Moreover Latin saeculum cannot be phonetically derived from *sek- "to
cut".
Saeculum means "long period of time ; lifetime ; profane life".
I consider it to be a variant of PIE *Hey(w) with s-mobile, which has
similar meanings.
A.
Fánaí Gaelach na nGleannta
> On Jan 11, 8:51 pm, Harlan Messinger
>
> <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > I prefer this name instead of Serbo-Croatian or South-Slavic.
>
> > If we all went around making up our own names for things, we wouldn't be
> > able to communicate. If you call it Serbian, we'll know what you mean.
>
> After the disappearance of the Serbo-Croatian language and the
> invention of the so-called Bosnian and Montenegrian I have no other
> choice but to use this term (Serbo-Slavic) for the same language which
> is spoken on the territory of the former Yugoslavia.
All the literary norms in Bosnia, Montenegro, Serbia, and Croatia are
based on Shtokavian, so it's just fine to call them literary/normative/
cultured/cultivated Shtokavian. The term "Serbo-Slavic" is obviously
Serbocentric and misleading, if all literary or standardized forms of
ex-Serbo-Croatian are meant. Besides, the term "Serbo-Croatian" will
be understood just fine.
Dušan Vukotić
<craoibhi...@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree with you about Serbo-Croatian, but it doesn't include the new
proclaimed "languages" as Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian and
Montenegrian.
Personally, I believe that the Central-South-Slavic diasystem should
not be called otherwise than Serbo-Croatian. Unfortunately, no one
cares about my opinion :)
DV
Dušan Vukotić
Mr. Yanng, I think you are still too young to enter a serious
discussion on this subject.
DV
Fánaí Gaelach na nGleannta
If you want to say anything about the diasystem, be my guest and call
it Serbo-Croatian if you want. This is a linguistic group and everyone
with a rudimentary idea of Slavic languages will understand what you
mean if you call it Serbo-Croatian. Do us and yourself a favour:
PLEASE call it Serbo-Croatian instead of devising funny names.
Myself, I simply call it normative Shtokavian, because that is what
the diasystem is, or what is in its nucleus. If I need to refer to
particular dialects distinct from normative Shtokavian, I can always
call the dialect by its name: Kajkavian, Timok-Torlak, Bunjevachki, or
whatever it happens to be.
Harlan Messinger
> On Jan 11, 8:51 pm, Harlan Messinger
> <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>> I prefer this name instead of Serbo-Croatian or South-Slavic.
>>
>> If we all went around making up our own names for things, we wouldn't be
>> able to communicate. If you call it Serbian, we'll know what you mean.
>
> After the disappearance of the Serbo-Croatian language and the
> invention of the so-called Bosnian and Montenegrian I have no other
> choice but to use this term (Serbo-Slavic) for the same language which
> is spoken on the territory of the former Yugoslavia.
Yes, you do have a choice not to make up a name and to use, instead
"Serbian" like everyone else (or, at least, like everyone else who
doesn't have a personal Balkans-related grievance).
>>> Saddle seems to be named like that because of its "notched" form
>>
>> You still haven't indicated what that has to do with anything else you
>> were saying, nor what you mean when you say it "seems" to be named that
>> or what your basis is for saying so.
>
> First, I wondered if Serbian sagnuti 'to bend' is a cognate to Serbian
> seći (from *seknuti, Lat. seco -are). The bent object gets the V-
> shaped form as if it was cut into (Serb. usek 'cutting, notch, slash';
> useći, usekao 'to cut into, incise').
I don't know about you, but when I see something bent, I don't think of
it as cut. So this isn't obvious to me.
> Second, Latin sedeo -ere
> (Serbian sedeti 'sit') means to sit down and take a bent position,
> isn't it? So. it is not impossible that Latin seco and sedeo are
> closely related (cf. Lat. sinuo -are 'to bend, curve'; sinus 'a curve,
> fold'; probably from *signus; i.e. Lat. signo -are 'to impress, mark,
> to inscribe').
"Bent" is not the first thing I think of when I see someone sitting
down, so again this isn't obvious. And there is no basis for [k] being
related to [d] in Latin. And regarding "signus", here you are again,
making something up and unjustifiably applying the word "probably" to
it. And why would a word meaning "curve" come from a word meaning
"inscribe" when curves are observed in the natural world and don't have
any special connection to drawing or marking?
>>> Of course, was there anyone here who wouldn't know it? Did I not
>>> mention *kw(e)kwl-o- as a "common source"? What about Spanish and
>>> French siglos/siècle?
>>
>> What about them? Let me explain: the evolution of later Latin into the
>> Romance languages (sæculum> siglo, siècle) sheds no light whatsoever on
>> the relationship between "sæculum" and any other word from earlier Latin
>> or its predecessors. Languages aren't psychic, and cause-and-effect
>> isn't retroactive. So every time you introduce one of these "compares"
>> involving something that happened centuries after the relationship you
>> are trying to demonstrate, you aren't explaining anything, you're just
>> creating a distraction.
>
> How to explain the French word siècle; it sounds very similar to
> English sickle
By the laws of probability, it would be extremely strange if a given
language X *didn't* have many words that happened to sound similar to
*completely unrelated words* in a given language Y. There are only just
so many sounds (and you have an amazing openness to seeing
interchangeability between pairs of arbitrary consonants), and words are
only just so long.
> (one derived from Latin seculum 'age, century' and the
> other form secula 'sickel/scythe'). Latin obsequella 'compliance,
> obedience', when written as obsecula (Plautus) is getting a different
> but close meaning ─ 'devotee'. I believe hat siècle is a slice or
> cutting of time (cf. segmentum 'cutting').
>
>> To be more specific regarding this case: [k]> [s] or [tS] in Romance
>> languages isn't any kind of evidence for a connection between [s] and
>> [k] in Latin or even earlier, 1,000 or more years earlier.
>
> The rules of orthography are just a matter of convention, is it not?
> But it seems you forgot that Spanich /c/ is often pronounced as /s/.
>
>>>>> Cycle is a sliced "piece" (cut) of time,
>>>> "Cyclus" meant "circle" which has nothing to do with slices of time.
>>
>>> I made here an in abstracto comparison... In Serbian kriška 'slice' is
>>> related to krug 'circle';
>>
>> Is it, or are you just, again, making this up? And then, you add the
>> element of time to that by yourself. You can play that kind of game all
>> day, but the more leaps you make, without evidence to back them up, the
>> less reason there is to take it seriously.
>
> I am trying to be constructive as possible, but I can not neutralize
> your skepticism or prejudice. Serbian kriška comes from the verb is-
> kružiti 'to take out from a circle', doesn't matter if you believe it
> or not.
It doesn't matter whether *you* believe it or not. It matters whether
you have a basis for it. I'm not contradicting this particular claim of
yours but I know that you have a history of making things like this up
and then assume they're true and call them "clear" and "probable", so
I'm asking you in this case whether you have a basis for your claim.
Harlan Messinger
> PS. As Harlan delivered his own diagnosis
> (a spouter of meta-statements unable to argue
> on the scientific level) I don't have to say it meself.
*Nobody* is able to argue your *unscientific* fiction on a scientific
level. If you don't understand this, consider arguing Kipling's "Just-So
Stories" on a *scientific* level.
pauljk
> On Jan 12, 5:26 am, "pauljk" <paul.kr...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>
>> > There is a Serbian word sagnuti 'to bow, bend', which may somehow be
>> > related to *sek- (cut):
>>
>> May be somehow related?
>> It's definitely not related at all to *sek-.
>>
>> The panslavic root "gnuti" / "hnouti" / "гнуть" / "gániti" / "hnuć" / "gnuś"
>> (inherited from PIE) means to move / lift / tilt in various Slavic languages.
>> "sa-" / "se-" is a prefix meaning "downward movement".
>>
>> Haven't we been through this zillions of times before?
>> A whole prefix+root cannot be etymologically related to a root alone!
>
>> Oh, common, everything is a circle, isn't it? :-)
>> pjk
>
> See my (newest) answer to Harlan.
> Have you ever heard the word "seknutí" before? You are a fluent
> speaker of Czech, aren't you? Iz that word se- prefixed or not?
Now we talking. Of course, the "se" in the word "seknutí" as well as in
many related words, "seknouti", "sekati", "sek", "sekačka", "sekáč",
"sekera", "sekerka", etc., etc. is NOT a prefix. The root of this group
of words is "-sek-" meaning -cut-.
The words based on the root "-gnu-/-hnu-/-hne-" (move/lift/tilt in
various Slavic languages) is an unrelated group of words that have
etymologically nothing to do with -sek- words.
The panslavic root "gnuti" / "hnouti" / "гнуть" / "gániti" / "hnuć" / "gnuś"
may or may not be prefixed by a common prefix "se-" (down/together).
If you doubt that, have a look at the following list of Cz "-hnou-" (move)
words with various other prefixes:
"sehnouti" (lower self by bending over)
"vyhnouti" (avoid by travelling around)
"zahnouti" (turn aside)
"pohnouti" (move a little / shuffle)
"přehnouti" (bend over something)
"nehnouti" (not move)
"ohnouti" (bend)
"uhnouti" (avoid something approaching you by moving aside)
etc.
I am sure you have similar Serbian equivalents.
Getting meaningful related verbs by swapping various prefixes
proves that the word is indeed of a prefix+verbroot structure.
You *cannot* do that with your example "seknutí" because the "se"
is not a prefix but part of the root, indivisible morpheme "-sek-".
Consequently, your original suggestion that they are all related is wrong.
>> Oh, common, everything is a circle, isn't it? :-)
>
> The whole cosmos is functioning in "circles". Isn't it the truth? :)
> Consider its spherical form.
What spherical form?
Holy mackerel, haven't you heard? It's a doughnut! :-)
Have you done any scuba diving?
When you dive deep enough you reach the point when you stop
seeing the bottom of the boat above you and don't yet see the bottom
of the ocean below. You look around and you see fish and other divers
inside a sphere of water. Depending on how clean the water is you can
see yourself inside a small or large sphere of water. If you dive outside
the outer reefs in, say, Maldives or Tahiti, you see much farther away
than if you dive inside the reef, near any coast or in inland lakes.
When we look at stars in our skies we *see* a sphere containing
stars and planets. With telescopes we *see* a bigger sphere.
But that is only what we *see*. What is the shape of the actual cosmos
might have very little to do with how far we can *see*.
Planets, stars, and galaxies hardly ever, if at all, travel in circles. They
travel in wobbly ellipsoidal trajectories constantly disturbing each
other, so they in fact never even travel in perfect ellipses let alone circles.
Yawn, it's well past the witching hour on this lovely warm summer night.
Time for a glass of Wolf Blass' Reserve Tawny and bed. :-)
pjk
Dušan Vukotić
> "Dušan Vukotić" <dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Yes, of course. But the same you may say for seknuti 'cut':
seknuti, seći - 'cut'
prekinuti - break, cut off
otkinuti - detach, split
zakinuti - cut short
ukinuti - discontinue, rescind
raskinuti - sever, rescind (Lat. re- + scindere 'split')
otrgnuti - break away, tear off
It may be it confuses you when some words are double prefixed;
pre-se-knuti (preseći) - cut off, intersect
pre-sa-geo - to bend too much
po-se-gnuti - try to rich something
Can you think why Czech sehnout 'bend, bow' sounds almost the same as
seknout 'cut'?
DV
Franz Gnaedinger
<h.usenetremovert...@gavelcade.com> wrote:
>
> *Nobody* is able to argue your *unscientific* fiction on a scientific
> level. If you don't understand this, consider arguing Kipling's "Just-So
> Stories" on a *scientific* level.
You could go for my first test case
bear as the furry one
versus
bear as the brown one
and for my second test case
deus and theos being akin
while Zeus is a different word
versus
deus and Zeus being akin
while theos is a different word
No fiction involved in my two test cases. Either
you are completely incapable of arguing on the
scientific level, or linguistics is a pseudo-science
- a little science mixed with a lot of voodoo. When
notorious James Harrison published a new update
to his prime sieve and 'proof' of Fermat's Last
Theorem, one of the mathematicians on sci.math
had a look at his message and pointed out the
blunder. They could do that, because mathematical
laws are scientific laws. There are no scientific laws
in linguistics, mere rules with limited ranges of validity.
Harlan Messinger
> On Jan 12, 1:59 pm, Harlan Messinger
> <h.usenetremovert...@gavelcade.com> wrote:
>> *Nobody* is able to argue your *unscientific* fiction on a scientific
>> level. If you don't understand this, consider arguing Kipling's "Just-So
>> Stories" on a *scientific* level.
>
> You could go for my first test case
>
> bear as the furry one
> versus
> bear as the brown one
I've talked about that one with you ten times already, and you know what
I've said about it (which wasn't negative until you got to the BIR crap
that you made up), so why are you bringing it up AGAIN? And I didn't
discuss it any further than I did because I have no data with reference
to which to discuss it further. WHAT ELSE, EXACTLY, DO YOU EXPECT TO BE
SAID ABOUT IT?
>
> and for my second test case
>
> deus and theos being akin
> while Zeus is a different word
> versus
> deus and Zeus being akin
> while theos is a different word
See above.
None of this alters the fact that *almost* every single thing you write
here is sheer fantasy on your part, completely unscientific, and
therefore the notion of discussing it scientifically is a fallacy.
Peter T. Daniels
> On Jan 12, 1:59 pm, Harlan Messinger
>
> <h.usenetremovert...@gavelcade.com> wrote:
>
> > *Nobody* is able to argue your *unscientific* fiction on a scientific
> > level. If you don't understand this, consider arguing Kipling's "Just-So
> > Stories" on a *scientific* level.
>
> You could go for my first test case
>
> bear as the furry one
> versus
> bear as the brown one
>
> and for my second test case
>
> deus and theos being akin
> while Zeus is a different word
> versus
> deus and Zeus being akin
> while theos is a different word
>
> No fiction involved in my two test cases. Either
What do you think they are "testing"?
Normally, what is "tested" is a hypothesis.
Normally, a hypothesis is formulated on the basis of observing a great
deal of evidence and looking for an explanation that will bring order
to the evidence; or else on the basis of deductive reasoning from
explicit prior assumptions, for which evidence may be gathered that
appears to support the hypothesis or else definitively disproves it.
> you are completely incapable of arguing on the
> scientific level, or linguistics is a pseudo-science
> - a little science mixed with a lot of voodoo. When
> notorious James Harrison published a new update
> to his prime sieve and 'proof' of Fermat's Last
> Theorem, one of the mathematicians on sci.math
> had a look at his message and pointed out the
> blunder. They could do that, because mathematical
> laws are scientific laws. There are no scientific laws
> in linguistics, mere rules with limited ranges of validity.
Then what are you asking to be "tested"?
Fánaí Gaelach na nGleannta
> On Jan 9, 9:47 pm, Du¹an Vukotiæ <dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > At the end of the 19th century Smythe Palmer wrote a book under the
> > title "Folk Etymology". On the page 448 he discussed the word 'world'
> > and "concluded" that world must be related to the English verb whirl;
> > i.e. a whirled world. He also mentioned that the people of Northampton
> > still have a phrase: "It'll be a world afore he's back!"
> > Anglo-Saxon "on worulda woruld" is equal to Latin "in secula
> > seculorum" (forever and ever) and it allegedly "explains" the
> > historical development of the word "world"; it may be said, of the
> > world which constantly whirls round and round.
> > The scientific opinion in this case is that the noun "world" is a
> > compound word: wer 'man' + ald 'age, old'. I do not find this much
> > convincing, because it sounds to me more folk-etymologically than some
> > "corrupted" and weird idea of a "secular" whirl-world.
>
> BIR meaning fur, LAD meaning hill, together naming
> the primeval hill in the cosmic fur of the goddess,
I know that Franz does not read my comments, but somebody else could
try to explain to him, that "world" cannot come from "bir lad" = "fur
hill" for the simple reason that *in the recorded history* of this
particular word, such forms as "veröld" are found which show that the
inner structure of the word is "ver" = man + "öld" = age.
Franz suggests that we can't disprove his etymology for the
"Magdalenian test case" bear. OK, fine by me. However, "world" is the
real Magdalenian test case, which illustrates fully what is wrong with
Franz's work: his etymologies can be disproved simply by pursuing the
recorded history of the word in Germanic languages, which irrefutably
shows that the word "world" is a compound word, made of elements
traceable in the written traditions of Germanic languages - *not* of
the elements Franz pretends to find in the word.
So, Franz's etymology for "world" can be soundly dismissed, and it
finely demonstrates what is wrong with his method: complete
unhistoricity. He tries to explain the *presently observable forms* of
words in terms of his Magdalenian elements, happily ignorant of the
fact that those words could have a real, recorded, written-down
history.
Magdalenian could be taken at least a little more seriously, if Franz
systematically attempted to go for the oldest recorded forms of words.
However, this would entail the learning and study of older forms of
Indo-European languages, and as we know, Franz is too stupid, lazy,
and self-centered to even consider the possibility. I once gave him a
link to a page about older Indo-European languages. It is very typical
that he never reacted to that - he didn't even open the link.
pauljk
No, *I* may not.
> seknuti, seći - 'cut'
> prekinuti - break, cut off
> otkinuti - detach, split
> zakinuti - cut short
> ukinuti - discontinue, rescind
> raskinuti - sever, rescind (Lat. re- + scindere 'split')
> otrgnuti - break away, tear off
None of these make any sense to me.
> It may be it confuses you when some words are double prefixed;
No it doesn't.
They are many verbs with two, three, and more prefixes. In Slavic
languages, what is and what isn't a prefix is reasonably transparent
and obvious to any primary/intermediate school graduate. I don't
understand why you should have such problem with that.
> pre-se-knuti (preseći) - cut off, intersect
There is only one prefix, pre-, -sek- is the morpheme meaning (cut),
-nu-ti are morphological markers.
> pre-sa-geo - to bend too much
> po-se-gnuti - try to rich something
These don't make any sense to me what-so-ever.
Where are the meaningful verb root morphemes?
> Can you think why Czech sehnout 'bend, bow' sounds almost the same as
> seknout 'cut'?
No, because they don't. For the hell of me, I cannot think why should those
two Czech verbs sound almost the same to me.
[h] in "sehnout" and [k] in "seknout" don't sound similar.
"hnout" (to move) is the shortest form of a meaningful perfective infinitive.
"seknout" (to cut) is the shortest form of a meaningful perfective infinitive.
"knout" is meaningless nonsense. "se-" in "seknout" is not a prefix.
pjk
Franz Gnaedinger
>
> What do you think they are "testing"?
>
> Normally, what is "tested" is a hypothesis.
>
> Normally, a hypothesis is formulated on the basis of observing a great
> deal of evidence and looking for an explanation that will bring order
> to the evidence; or else on the basis of deductive reasoning from
> explicit prior assumptions, for which evidence may be gathered that
> appears to support the hypothesis or else definitively disproves it.
PIE reconstructions are hypothetical. How can _they_
be tested? When ancient texts are revealed, so a Hittite
word is evidence for laryngeals, or when an ancient
text is deciphered and allows insight into the workings
of an early language. This occasion turned up in the
important case of the Zeus name mentioned in the center
of the Tiryns side of the Phaistos Disc, and repeated
a few words later. The name as it occurs on this famous
object is not something like the hypothetized *diaeus
but Ss-Ey-R which I recognize as derivative of TYR
meaning overcomer, as verb to overcome in the double
sense of rule and give, written as a rosette of eight petals
followed by a male profile with an 8-sign on the cheek
and an ear of grain. The rosette is the equivalent of the
Sumerian and Akkadian rosette of the dingir calendar;
the male profile with the 8-sign on the cheek a symbol
of the ruler in the heavenly abode, Sseyr (top loop)
and of the ruler on earth, equal of Sseyr (bottom loop),
rulers that govern; and the ear of grain denotes him as
giver, he who nourishes the people. Eponymous Tiryns
has been honored as Lord Laertes the gardener in
Homer's Odyssey. From the archaeological evidence
I gathered, there was a historical ruler of Tiryns in the
Middle Helladic period of time who introduced the
olive tree from Arcadia (and Crete) earlier than hitherto
assumed, and made agriculture in the Argolis thrive.
I have plenty evidence for all this, archaeological
evidence, information conveyed in visual language
(something that doesn't exist for you, but you are
not my pope, you can neither forbid me to consult
the large corpi of visual language handed down
to us from Ebla and Minos and Mycenae, nor can
you put Derk Ohlenroth on the index). And my Paleo-
linguistic experiment goes along perfectly well with the
archaeological evidence: Magdalenian TYR emphatic
Middle Helladic Sseyr Doric Sseus Homeric Zeus.
While the alternative name of Zeus, namely Dios,
mentioned first in the Odyssey, is a derivative of
DhAG meaning able, good in the sense of able. *
So I say Dios is akin to PIE *diaeus, and not Zeus.
Whatever you call my hypothesis, it is a scientific
hypothesis: Latin deus and Greek theos are akin
while Zeus is a different word, whereas PIE claims
that deus and Zeus are akin while theos is a different
word. And then of course my first Magdalenian test
case, bear as the furry one versus bear as the brown
one, postulated in August 2008, more than two years ago,
still not met with a serious answer, bear as the brown one
seems to be lame even for the hardboiled defendors
of PIE and its many unproven hypotheses in form of
hypercomplicated quasi-algebraic formulae or
however one may call these crazy strings of letters
and diacritic spices strewn over with a generous hand.
The real test in a historical science is how much you
can understand with a hypothesis you postulate.
So my test are the many fields of investigation,
for example the rediscovery of three lost epics.
You are obviously not à jour concerning the scientific
way: science proceeds by proposing a hypothesis
and looking how far you can go with it, how far your
ideas carry along - a real test will come soon enough,
you don't have to worry about that. All you have to do
is go on going on, in fact if you have a novel idea
you are obliged to go on as far as you can, till a test
case arises, till your idea is confirmed (for the time
being only) or finished off with, but finished off
in scientific terms, on the scientific level, not by the
mass of ad hominems you are pouring on the head
of an author, and by proclaiming edicts (visual
language does not exist, I can judge the book by
Derk Ohlenroth without having laid eyes on it,
the Göbekli Tepe is of no special interest, etc.).
* The text on the Tiryns side of the Phaistos Disc
can be regarded as a longer and more explicit
version of the standing formula Zeus Dios
Fánaí Gaelach na nGleannta
> John Atkinson wrote (11-01-2011 14:23):
>
> > On 12/01/2011 12:08 AM, Fánaí Gaelach na nGleannta wrote:
> >> On 11 tammi, 14:12, António Marques<antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
> >>> John Atkinson wrote (10-01-2011 05:49):
>
> >>>> Just about every branch of IE has different word(s) for "world",
> >>>> but lots of them are calques, often associated with the spread of
> >>>> Christianity, and, earlier, Greek philosophy. Just some of them:
>
> >>>> (...) Celtic: domun (from "bottom, foundation")
>
> >>> Isn't the celtic supposed to be *bitu (with whatever meaning)?
>
> >> In Irish, there are domhan (< domun), which is the modern word, and
> >> bith, which is only found in idiomatic expressions.
>
> Ok. Breton 'bed' seems to cover everything. _Ar Bed Keltiek_ 'The Celtic
> World', _ebed_ 'in-[the]-world' -> 'no/none' (a similar evolution to that of
> french _pas_, which btw is also mirrored by breton _ked_, usually written
> <ket>).
I forgot about saol (older saoghal) which means both life and world
(and note saolta, saoghalta "secular").
>
> >> I am not an etymologist, but to me domhan looks very much the same as
> >> domhain 'deep'.
>
> > Right
>
> Offhand I can't think of a breton cognate.
What is the Breton word for "deep" by the way?
Franz Gnaedinger
If someone says I propose BIR LAD as origin of
English world without knowing the history of the word
he is a fool. Below is the entry on 'Welt' in Grimm's
Wörterbuch (online version, as I can't quote from
the printed version). My claim is that the etymology
man + old is a Christian reinterpretation of a very
old formula that was no longer understood, or it was
given a deliberate Christian spin in order to overcome
a pagan past. We know of such religious etymologies,
famous example Abram Abraham in the Bible, in
my opinion from the lost ABA BRA, he who carries
out the will of the (hevanely) father ABA with his
right arm BRA. Analoguous to BRA MAN Brahma,
he who called the world into existence by playing
the lyra with his right arm BRA and his right hand MAN.
And to AAR RAA MAN Armenian and Aramaic,
those who follow the heavenly lord composed of
air AAR and light RAA and carry out his will with their
right hand MAN. Arab is a polished form of AAR RAA BRA,
they who carry out the will of the heavenly lord composed
of air AAR and light RAA with their right arm BRA.
Now for the long entry on Welt 'world' in Grimm's
Wörterbuch:
welt, f. (über abweichende genusformen im nd. und übrigen germ. s.
u.). formen und verbreitung.
ahd. weralt Mons. fr. 68 Hench; altbayr. gebet in: kl. ahd.
sprachdenkm. 310, 31 Steinmeyer; Tatian 239 Sievers (164, 4); daneben
erscheinen früh varianten mit anderer qualität des nebensilbenvokals:
werolt Tatian 171 Sievers (119, 10); altalem. psalmenübers. in: kl.
ahd. sprachdenkm. 295, 3 Steinmeyer; Otlohs gebet ebda. 184, 5; werult
in weruldi (gen. sg.) Weiszenburger katech. ebda. 34, 6; werelt in
werelti Tatian 195 Sievers (132, 19); werelte Notker 1, 709, 9 Piper;
werilt physiologus in: kl. ahd. sprachdenkm. 125, 35 Steinmeyer;
Annolied 35 Opitz-Bulst (31, 16); vereinzelt auch des stammvokals
unter einflusz des vorangehenden w: worolt Otfrid I 3, 49 Kelle;
gelegentlich finden sich bereits einsilbige kurzformen: werlt Tatian
130 Sievers (90, 5); Notker 1, 352, 14 Piper; s. ferner PBB. 38 (1913)
367 sowie zu den ahd. formen im allgemeinen Schatz ahd. gr. (1927) 72
f. und 82 f. im mhd. herrscht weithin die synkopierte form werlt (s.
mhd. wb. 3, 577 f.; Lexer 3, 782 f.) neben zweisilbigen varianten, die
zum teil den älteren lautstand bewahrt haben, zum teil jüngere
entwicklung zeigen: werelt Schwabenspiegel 3 Wackernagel; werlet
Arnsteiner Marienlied v. 109 in: kl. dt. ged. d. 11. u. 12. jhs. 127
Waag (neben werlt ebda. 124, v. 1); werlit vom jüngsten gericht in:
mhd. übungsstücke 213 Meyer-Benfey; werlint paradisus anime
intelligentis 17 Strauch; die — im konsonantenstand vereinfachte —
form der nhd. schriftsprache welt ist schon seit dem 12. jh.
nachweisbar, wird aber erst in spätmittelalterlichen hss. häufiger, s.
Weinhold mhd. gr. (1883) 208, Michels mhd. elementarb. (1921) 152 und
Karstien hist. dt. gramm. 1 (1939) 158; nach Schirokauer stud. z. mhd.
reimgramm. in: PBB. 47 (1923) 108 f. und v. Kraus dt. liederd. d. 13.
jhs. 1 (1952) x anm. ist sie zunächst nur in alem. texten geläufig,
nicht wie Weinhold und Michels meinen, im bair.-österr.; noch 1397
ändert der bair. schreiber des gr. Alex. alem. welt in werlt
Schirokauer a. a. o. (vgl. auch das hs. liche nebeneinander von
schwäb. weltlich, weltleich und bair. werltlich, werltleich in der
überlieferung von Megenbergs dt. sphaera, s. unter weltlich). auch in
frühnhd. hss. und drucken erscheinen daneben noch zahlreiche varianten
abweichender form: welt oder werlt voc. teut. (Nürnberg 1482) nn 7a;
wernt (15. jh., md.) Diefenbach gl. 342 s. v. macrocosmus u. 627 s. v.
universum; werlnt (15. jh., md.) ebda. 353 s. v. meditullium (wohl
eine mischbildung zwischen werlt und wernt, s. V. Moser frühnhd. gr.
1, 3 [1951] 17); bei Luther stehen nebeneinander (s. auch H. Bach
laut- u. formenlehre d. spr. Luthers [1934] 65): werlet 19, 263 W.;
werlt 9, 185 W. und welt 53, 588 W.; mit den orthographischen
varianten wellt (1522) dt. bibel 6, 364 W. (dagegen 1546: welt ebda.
365); weltt tischr. 5, 17 W.; weldtt 14, 334 W.; welth 2, 96 W.; noch
im 17. und 18. jh. finden sich vereinzelt zweisilbige formen: werlet
Zeiszold in: ev. kirchenl. 2, 44 Fischer-Tümpel (nr. 41, str. 15);
Schönaich mischmasch (1756) 31; auch die seit dem spätmittelalter
nachweisbare nebenform mit epithetischem e (s. Wilmanns dt. gramm. 1
[31911] 361, Paul dt. gramm. 2 [1917] 89 insbes. anm. 1
[Bd. 28, Sp. 1457]
sowie Paul-Gierach mhd. gramm. [141944] 96 anm. 4 zu § 127), die sich
aus dem anschlusz des wortes an die mischdeklination erklärt, ist bis
ins 17. jh. zu belegen: werlte (nom. u. acc. sg.) Nürnb. hs. 15. jh.
in: zs. f. dt. altert. 83 (1951-52) 200 u. 220 u. ö. (= d. hort v. d.
astronomie 1, 7 u. 49, 7); welte (vokativisch gebraucht) volksl. d.
16. jhs. bei Uhland 1, 463; noch 1605 bei Hollonius somnium vitae
humanae 70 ndr.: lesset die welt die welte sein; vgl. ferner Ruchamer
(1508) unter V A 2 sowie mnd. werlde.
as. werold, vereinzelt auch weruld sowie warold, worold (in waroldi,
woroldi), f. und m. Sehrt wb. z. Heliand 663 f.; Wadstlin kl. as.
sprachdenkm. 245; Gallée and. wb. 376 u. 530, as. gramm. (1910) 46,
49, 113; die maskulinen formen erklären sich wohl aus anlehnung an die
flexion konsonantischer stämme (s. Holthausen as. elem.-b. [1921] 104,
Gallée a. a. o. 210 f.; ähnlich van Helten mndl. spraakkunst [1887]
351 f. für das mndl.), wozu einwirkung von lat. mundus getreten sein
mag. anfr. werolt altostnfr. psalmenfragm. 25 (ps. 60, 9) van Helten;
werilt in werildi, werildis ebda. 57 (ps. 18, 10); mndl. werelt,
seltener werlt, warelt, werrelt, werlet, werhilt, welt, f. und m.
Verwijs-Verdam 9, 2, 2217; ndl. wereld Dale 2, 1981. mnd. werlt,
werlde, warlt, warlit Schiller-Lübben 5, 686; mit entwicklung eines
sekundärvokals (?) werrelt Lasch mnd. gramm. (1914) 124. afries.
warld, wrald, wrauld, rauld, ruald Richthofen afries. wb. 1160;
Holthausen afries. wb. 124 (zum stammvokal a der afries. formen vgl.
van Helten altostfries. gramm. [1890] 11, § 10, anm. 2, zum r-umsprung
ebda. 81, § 96, über die form wrauld Siebs afries. vocalismus in: PBB.
11 [1886] 245 und die schreibung ru für wr van Helten a. a. o. 73, §
84); neufries. wrâld, wraeld, wrâd Dijkstra 3, 476; (festländ.)
nordfries. wràl, m. Jensen 713; wrl Jabben 108; wrāll Bendsen 50;
nordfries. (Föhr und Amrum) werld f. und m. Schmidt-Petersen 162;
(Sylt) wārel Möller 293; ostfries. warrelt, werreld, wereld (jedoch
fast vollständig durch das nhd. welt verdrängt und nur noch in einigen
redensarten und sprichwörtern erhalten) Doornkaat Koolman 3, 539. ae.
nördl. nordhumbr. woruld, worold, woreld, world, altws. worold, südl.
nordhumbr. und ws. auch weorold Sievers-Brunner ae. gramm. (1942) 90
f. (§ 113 b sowie anm. 4 u. 7), 87; Bosworth-Toller 1193; Grein-Köhler
820; me. weoreld, weoruld, weorld, wereld, werld, werd, woruld,
woreld, world Stratmann 678; ne. world Murray 10, 2, 300; auch im
engl. (ae.) treten vereinzelte maskulinformen auf, s. Bosworth-Toller
a. a. o. und Murray a. a. o. an. veröld Fritzner 3, 922; Cleasby-
Vigfusson 699; mschwed. väruld, värald, väreld, värild, värld, werldh,
werll Söderwall 2, 2, 1060; schwed. värld f. und n. Hellquist (31948)
1396; ädän. vereld, verd(en) Kalkar 4, 800; dän. verd-en mit
erstarrtem bestimmten artikel, s. Falk-Torp 1368; ordbog over det
danske sprog 26 (1952) 1182 ff.; norw. verd Torp 878.
mundartlich im gesamten sprachraum geläufig und in mannigfachen
redensarten lebendig, wenn auch als wort einer gehobenen stilschicht
(vgl. DWB gott) nicht von jedem idiotikon gebucht. fast
ausschlieszlich in der schriftsprachlichen form welt belegt. nur
vereinzelt werden wesentlich abweichende formen verzeichnet (vgl. auch
die obgenannten fries. belege): wilt, wölt (vereinzelt neben welt)
Mensing schlesw.-holst. 5, 588; walt Hofmann niederhess. 261; Ruckert
unterfränk. 193; Martin-Lienhart elsäss. 2, 824; wöłt, wəlt Vetsch
Appenzell 101 u. 147. abgesehen von diesen einzelmundartlichen
qualitätsabweichungen des stammvokals (s. darüber auch die bemerkungen
bei Schmeller maa. Bayerns 48 und Streiff Glarner maa. 27) erscheint
am bemerkenswertesten die zuweilen bezeugte dehnung oder gar
diphthongierung des vokals vor lt bzw. rt (s. Jutz alem. maa. [1931]
160): wēlt Heilig Taubergrund 29 (ostfränk.); wǣlt Wipf Visperterminen
127; Clausz ma. v. Uri 87; Brun Obersaxen (Graubünden) 73;
Hotzenköcherle Mutten 206; Kessler z. (schweiz.) ma. d. Schanfigg in:
PBB. 55 (1931) 164. wäilt (neben wält) Tonnar-Evers Eupen 224; weald
(neben weld) Crecelius oberhess. 904; wealt Kuen oberschwäb. wb. d.
bauernspr.
[Bd. 28, Sp. 1458]
54; węəlt, wjəlt (neben wlt, wlt) Fischer schwäb. 6, 1; 668; wiärlt
Kisch Nösner wörter 173; węǫut (mit vokalisierung des l) Jutz alem.
maa. 55; woit (mittelbair.) Reis dt. maa. (21920) 52 (zur entstehung
dieses zwielauts vgl. Teuthonista 1 [1924-25] 88, 90 u. 105). ferner
der wandel des anlauts zum labialen verschluszlaut (s. Behaghel gesch.
d. dt. spr. [51928] 385): berlt, barlt Schröer Gottschee 228 u. 231;
belt Schmeller cimbr. 172; Bacher Lusern 225; Zingerle Lusern 57; der
ersatz des r (vor l) durch d: vædlt (neben værlt) Scheiner mediascher
ma. (Siebenb.) in: PBB. 12 (1887) 146; sowie die schwächung des
auslauts (lenisierung nach l) bzw. bewahrung der unverschärften lenis
in nd. maa.: weld Mensing schlesw.-holst. 5, 588; Dähnert plattdt.
545; Woeste-N. westfäl. 319; Schambach Göttingen 293; Crecelius
oberhess. 904; Schmeller-Frommann bayr. 2, 910; wald Polenz altenb.
62; wæld Baumgartner Berner seel. 134; Stucki ma. v. Jaun 193; wäld
Friedli bärndütsch 2, 133; wöld Jakob Wien 218. herkunft und
bedeutung.
die begriffliche herleitung von wer-alt (< wer 'mann' + alt, got.
alds, ae. yld, an. ǫld, ein - zur zeitbezeichnung gewordenes -
verbalabstraktum zu germ. alan 'zeugen, nähren, wachsen', s. Feist
vgl. wb. d. got. spr. [1939] 35, Jóhannesson isl. etym. wb. 1 [1951
ff.] 37 und Kluge dt. wortbildungsl. [1925] 12) ist schwierig. läszt
einerseits die parallele des got. manaseþs 'κόσμος', eigentlich
'menschensaat', eine alte bildungs- und vorstellungsweise des germ.
(etwa eine auffassung der welt als 'lebentragender kreis menschlicher
gemeinschaft' im gegensatz zur lebensfeindlichen wildnis, vgl. auch
got. fairus 'κόσμος' und Jacob Grimms wort: 'manasêþs, faírhvus und
wëralt zeigen auf räume und zeiten hin, die von menschen erfüllt
werden' dt. mythologie 2 [41876] 663) vermuten, so ist es andererseits
kaum möglich, die komposition weralt als eine eigentümlich heidnische
— von der kirche übernommene und im christlichen geiste gewandelte —
prägung des vorchristlichen germ. zu erweisen: vorchristliche belege
des wortes kennen wir nicht; wir treffen es — als wiedergabe des
kirchenlat. saeculum — zufrühest im südgerm.; es ist — im gegensatz
etwa zu der alten gemeingerm. bildung got. midjungards, an. miðgarðr,
ae. middangeard, as. middilgard, ahd. mittin-, mittilgart — weder im
got. nachweisbar, noch im nord. ursprünglich (s. F. Fischer d. lehnw.
d. altwestnord. [1909] 7 und W. H. Vogt in PBB. 58 [1934] 21 anm.; die
im 10.-11. jh. entstandene, christlich beeinfluszte vǫluspá bietet die
beiden einzigen belege des wortes in der edda; sie zeigen mit der
bedeutung 'zeitalter', 'welt' [s. Gering vollst. wb. z. d. liedern d.
edda, 1903, 1106 ] die im folgenden erörterte doppelseitigkeit des
zugrundeliegenden saeculum, dessen einflusz nach W. H. Vogt auch
andere ebda. auftretende zusammensetzungen mit -ǫld aufweisen, s. a.
a. o. 24). im got. der Ulfilasbibel (mehrfach in den Paulinischen
briefen) findet sich allerdings bereits das (im ahd. unbezeugte)
simplex alds als entsprechung von αἰών (über dessen sinnverwandtschaft
mit κόσμος s. u.). weiterbildung dieses ansatzes, verdeutlichung des
alds zu wer-alt unter einflusz des bedeutungsentsprechenden lat.
wortes saeculum, urspr. 'menschensaat, menschenalter' — vielleicht
einem alten germ., besonders im got. lebendigen (s. o.)
bildungsprinzip folgend — ist die vermutliche entwicklung, deren
ausgangspunkt man — wie beim aufkommen der kontinentalgerm.
präfixbildung abgot (s. PBB. 67 [1944] 426 u. 433) — im bereich der
got. mission suchen mag; sie musz bis zum 8. jh. erfolgt sein; denn zu
beginn der literarischen überlieferung des frühmittelalterl. dt.
erscheint die komposition als durchaus geläufig, ja zuweilen bereits
zu werlt verschliffen (s. o.), und Otfrid wagt schon die weitere
zusammensetzung worolt-altar 'weltalter', nachdem das — im ahd. als
simplex unübliche und nicht bezeugte — temporale grundwort des ersten
gliedes (-alt) unverständlich geworden war. unmittelbare
entsprechungen zu weralt finden sich im weiteren idg. nicht; vgl. über
die synonymen bezeichnungen für welt in den wichtigsten idg. sprachen
[Bd. 28, Sp. 1459]
C. D. Buck words for world, carth and land, sun in: language 5 (1929)
218 ff., Schrader-Nehring reallex. d. idg. altertumskde. 2 (1929) 652
sowie die überschau in J. Grimms dt. mythologie 2 (41876) 661 ff.; 3
(41878) 235 ff. und dt. gramm. 3 (1890) 389 f. — lat. saeculum, das
für die prägung und verwendung des germ. wortes bestimmend geworden
ist (vgl. auch Buck a. a. o. 222), war seit beginn der christlichen
epoche, also schon im späten altertum und frühen mittelalter, nicht
mehr ausschlieszliche bezeichnung für einen reinen zeitbegriff. ebenso
wie das bedeutungsentsprechende griechische wort αἰών an vielen
stellen des neuen testaments bereits mit κόσμος gleichgesetzt worden
war, so war das — in den lat. bibelübersetzungen dafür eintretende —
lat. aequivalent saeculum in sinnverwandtschaft mit mundus, der
geläufigen entsprechung von κόσμος, geraten, und der am häufigsten
belegte wortsinn von saeculum wurde im mittelalter '(diesseitige,
sündige) welt'; vgl. zum vorstehenden G. Stadtmüller saeculum in:
saeculum 2 (1951) 152 ff.
welt, das als wiedergabe von lat. saeculum und mundus erscheint (vgl.
auch R. v. Raumer d. einwirkung d. Christentums auf d. altdt. spr.
[1845] 374 und Lindquist in: PBB. 60 [1939] 22), weist dementsprechend
in (bzw. seit) frühdt. zeit folgende hauptbedeutungen auf:
'zeitalter', insbes. 'menschenalter, weltalter' (I), 'zeitlichkeit,
das diesseitige zeitverhaftete dasein und daseiende' (II), 'kreis der
erdbewohner' (III A), 'auszenwelt' (IV A), 'erdkreis' (V),
'schöpfung' (VI), 'transzendente sphäre' (IX B 1 andere, jene welt
'jenseits'), d. h. welt erwächst mit der masse seiner gewichtigsten
bedeutungen auf christl.-lat. grunde. im anschlusz an saeculum und
mundus erreicht es bereits in frühdt. zeit fast alle seine
wesentlichen bedeutungen, dann vermannigfaltigt durch neuerliche
einwirkungen des lat.-griech. (macrocosmus [VII], microcosmus [VIII
1]) im zeitalter des sich erweiternden naturwissenschaftlichen
weltbilds, des franz. monde [III A 1 b β, γ und 2 c]) im 18. jh.,
sowie durch metaphorische anwendungen mannigfacher art; überall, wo
der sprecher auf ein abgeschlossenes ganzes, auf universale fülle,
welcher art auch immer, zielt, springt das wort welt als bezeichnung
ein: für 'einen in sich geschlossenen bezirk verschiedener art, der in
seiner eigenständigkeit und eigengesetzlichkeit gleichsam ein all im
kleinen darstellt' (VIII), 'die ganzheit eines geistigen (oder
halbkonkreten) bereiches' (IX), 'die gesamtheit der sinnlich und
geistig erfaszbaren erscheinungen und sachverhalte' (X),
'allumfassende menge, fülle, hohes (kosmisches) masz' (XI), um nur die
wichtigsten, von welt umfaszten bereiche anzudeuten. so spiegelt die
geschichte des wortes welt gleichsam symbolhaft den gang der
abendländisch-deutschen kulturwelt wider, die auf christlichantikem
grunde ersteht, durch äuszere einflüsse und inneres wachstum sich zu
immer gröszerer mannigfaltigkeit entwickelt.
einige abschnitte dieser wortgeschichte (VI, VII) lassen einen
wesentlichen vorgang der dt. geistesgeschichte sichtbar werden, sie
zeigen, wie der antike kosmos- und christliche schöpfungsbegriff
allmählich dem der modernen naturwissenschaft und welt-anschauung
weicht, und die schillernde vieldeutigkeit, mit der das wort zuweilen
im schrifttum des 18. und 19. jahrhunderts begegnet, läszt uns spüren,
wie sich diese vorstellungen zu oft eigenartigen synthesen eines
individuellen welt-bilds verbunden haben (über das neben- und
ineinander des alten und neuen weltraumbilds in der dichtung der
romantik vgl. Chr. Junker d. weltraumbild i. d. dt. lyrik [1932] 17,
über die wechselnde weltauffassung deutscher philosophen Eisler wb. d.
philos. begr. 3 [41030] 502 ff.).
wenn irgendwo, dann gilt für diesen artikel des deutschen wörterbuchs
das wort Wilhelm Grimms: 'definitionen können nicht erschöpfen, was
das lebendige wort in sich faszt, aus den reichlichen und mit sinn
ausgewählten beispielen musz der wahre begriff hervorgehen und wird
sich in den feineren schattierungen oft nur empfinden lassen' (2. 4.
1839) br. d. br. Grimm an Savigny (1953) 404 Schoof.
[Bd. 28, Sp. 1460]
Fánaí Gaelach na nGleannta
>
>
> If someone says I propose BIR LAD as origin of
> English world without knowing the history of the word
> he is a fool.
You do read me, why do you pretend otherwise?
> Arab is a polished form of AAR RAA BRA,
In Arabic, the word for Arab begins with a consonant called 'ayn,
which is in Western transcriptions expressed in various ways; one
popular transcription is the number seven, which looks somewhat
similar to the Arabic letter. Thus, the Arabic word for an Arab is
7arab.
We again see here that Franz does not go to the original source, and
fails to take it into account when devising his theories. When it is
pointed out to him, as in the case of world, veröld, he panics and ad
libs an ad hoc explanation.
Ruud Harmsen
<craoi...@gmail.com>: in sci.lang:
>In Arabic, the word for Arab begins with a consonant called 'ayn,
>which is in Western transcriptions expressed in various ways; one
>popular transcription is the number seven, which looks somewhat
>similar to the Arabic letter. Thus, the Arabic word for an Arab is
>7arab.
No, the 7 is more often used for the strong H as in muHammad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanization_of_Arabic
See the column marked OnlineScript. For `ain, 3 is used.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
Fánaí Gaelach na nGleannta
> Thu, 13 Jan 2011 02:13:59 -0800 (PST): F na Gaelach na nGleannta
> <craoibhi...@gmail.com>: in sci.lang:
>
> >In Arabic, the word for Arab begins with a consonant called 'ayn,
> >which is in Western transcriptions expressed in various ways; one
> >popular transcription is the number seven, which looks somewhat
> >similar to the Arabic letter. Thus, the Arabic word for an Arab is
> >7arab.
>
> No, the 7 is more often used for the strong H as in muHammad.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanization_of_Arabic
> See the column marked OnlineScript. For `ain, 3 is used.
Oh, it was that way round. Well, I never use that notation myself, so
I remembered wrong.
Peter T. Daniels
> On Jan 12, 5:19 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > What do you think they are "testing"?
>
> > Normally, what is "tested" is a hypothesis.
>
> > Normally, a hypothesis is formulated on the basis of observing a great
> > deal of evidence and looking for an explanation that will bring order
> > to the evidence; or else on the basis of deductive reasoning from
> > explicit prior assumptions, for which evidence may be gathered that
> > appears to support the hypothesis or else definitively disproves it.
>
> PIE reconstructions are hypothetical. How can _they_
Playing with two different meanings of a word (especially of a term
that can be either technical or ordinary-use) is a "speech act joke."
António Marques
> On 11 tammi, 18:30, António Marques<antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
>> John Atkinson wrote (11-01-2011 14:23):
>>
>>> On 12/01/2011 12:08 AM, Fánaí Gaelach na nGleannta wrote:
>>>> On 11 tammi, 14:12, António Marques<antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
>>>>> John Atkinson wrote (10-01-2011 05:49):
>>
>>>>>> Just about every branch of IE has different word(s) for "world",
>>>>>> but lots of them are calques, often associated with the spread of
>>>>>> Christianity, and, earlier, Greek philosophy. Just some of them:
>>
>>>>>> (...) Celtic: domun (from "bottom, foundation")
>>
>>>>> Isn't the celtic supposed to be *bitu (with whatever meaning)?
>>
>>>> In Irish, there are domhan (< domun), which is the modern word, and
>>>> bith, which is only found in idiomatic expressions.
>>
>> Ok. Breton 'bed' seems to cover everything. _Ar Bed Keltiek_ 'The Celtic
>> World', _ebed_ 'in-[the]-world' -> 'no/none' (a similar evolution to that of
>> french _pas_, which btw is also mirrored by breton _ked_, usually written
>> <ket>).
>
> I forgot about saol (older saoghal) which means both life and world
> (and note saolta, saoghalta "secular").
This one I think is only Goidelic.
>>>> I am not an etymologist, but to me domhan looks very much the same as
>>>> domhain 'deep'.
>>> Right
>>
>> Offhand I can't think of a breton cognate.
>
> What is the Breton word for "deep" by the way?
D'oh... 'don'. Was only thinking of 'world'. I'm slow this week.
So, yes, the same celtic root seems to have given us modern 'deep' (and
_deep_ seems to be a cognate) and 'world' (supposedly it's also present in a
gaulish name, _Dumnorix_).
Trond Engen
[On words for "world"]
[...]
> I forgot about saol (older saoghal) which means both life and world
> (and note saolta, saoghalta "secular").
Or "worldly", or "mundane".
--
Trond Engen
Harlan Messinger
> On Jan 12, 5:19 pm, "Peter T. Daniels"<gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> What do you think they are "testing"?
>>
>> Normally, what is "tested" is a hypothesis.
>>
>> Normally, a hypothesis is formulated on the basis of observing a great
>> deal of evidence and looking for an explanation that will bring order
>> to the evidence; or else on the basis of deductive reasoning from
>> explicit prior assumptions, for which evidence may be gathered that
>> appears to support the hypothesis or else definitively disproves it.
>
> PIE reconstructions are hypothetical. How can _they_
> be tested?
When they lead to and are consistent with patterns that turn out to
occur over and over and over again. You've been told this many, many,
many times. You propose no patterns, no rules, nothing systematic, only
one-at-a-time pronouncements that "this means this" because "this has
characteristic X, which reminds me of characteristic Y, which was done
by ancient people at the time of Z", pronouncements that aren't
extensible in nature. There is no way to know from any of them what the
next thing is that you'll come up with, because you make every one of
them up ad hoc. There is no way to say, "Ah, this works" because there
is nothing about the collective claims you have made that can be said to
fit together.
Yes, PIE reconstructions aren't tested in the same sense that hypotheses
in chemistry or physics, because we have no access to the real-world
data about which the hypothesis have been formed. No one claims PIE
reconstructions to have the solidity of a Boyle's Law or a Planck's
constant. Absolutely. They are of a lower order of confidence. But they
do rest on a foundation of discernible, testable regularity that
provides *some* confidence, while what you produce has nothing in it
that is capable of undergoing any kind of comparable analysis.
Franz Gnaedinger
<h.usenetremovert...@gavelcade.com> wrote:
>
> When they lead to and are consistent with patterns that turn out to
> occur over and over and over again. You've been told this many, many,
> many times. You propose no patterns, no rules, nothing systematic, only
> one-at-a-time pronouncements that "this means this" because "this has
> characteristic X, which reminds me of characteristic Y, which was done
> by ancient people at the time of Z", pronouncements that aren't
> extensible in nature. There is no way to know from any of them what the
> next thing is that you'll come up with, because you make every one of
> them up ad hoc. There is no way to say, "Ah, this works" because there
> is nothing about the collective claims you have made that can be said to
> fit together.
>
> Yes, PIE reconstructions aren't tested in the same sense that hypotheses
> in chemistry or physics, because we have no access to the real-world
> data about which the hypothesis have been formed. No one claims PIE
> reconstructions to have the solidity of a Boyle's Law or a Planck's
> constant. Absolutely. They are of a lower order of confidence. But they
> do rest on a foundation of discernible, testable regularity that
> provides *some* confidence, while what you produce has nothing in it
> that is capable of undergoing any kind of comparable analysis.
I asked how can the hypothetical PIE reconstructions
be tested? and you say: "When they lead to and are
consistent with patterns that turn out to occur over
and over and over again." What does that mean?
There are plenty of words that suggest a root like
*diaeus, plenty words around this hypothetical root,
and also Zeus was associated to this root, but now
comes my challenge. I say that 'Zeus' has another root,
relying on Derk Ohlenroth's decipherment of the Paistos
Disk, where Zeus appears as Ss-Ey-R Sseyr, which
I read as emphatic form of TYR meaning overcomer,
as verb to overcome in the double sense of rule and
give, while the alternative name of Zeus, Dios, is
a derivative of *diaeus, but the origin of that word
is DhAG meaning able, good in the sense of able.
I have a neat and lean and clean-cut hypothesis
to offer. If you can't disprove it with all the ramba
zamba of PIE with a thousand brillant scholars
and all their papers and all their sound rules and
everything, I am entitled to go on with my linguistic
experiment. You say nothing about my second
Magdalenian test case, you drop again meta-babble.
You are boring Peter T. Daniels to death with your
replies to me, then yourself, while I remain unharmed,
your meta-replies are so easy to counter.
yangg
Such a thing is certainly not indo-european.
It's not far from not being linguistic at all in the first place.
A.
***
plenty words around this hypothetical root,
> and also Zeus was associated to this root,
***
No.
Zeus derives from *dyew-s.
A.
***
but now
> comes my challenge. I say that 'Zeus' has another root,
> relying on Derk Ohlenroth's decipherment of the Paistos
> Disk, where Zeus appears as Ss-Ey-R Sseyr, which
> I read as emphatic form of TYR meaning overcomer,
> as verb to overcome in the double sense of rule and
> give, while the alternative name of Zeus, Dios, is
> a derivative of *diaeus, but the origin of that word
> is DhAG meaning able, good in the sense of able.
> I have a neat and lean and clean-cut hypothesis
> to offer. If you can't disprove it with all the ramba
> zamba of PIE with a thousand brillant scholars
> and all their papers and all their sound rules and
> everything,
***
Sound rules is precisely the equivalent of being tested.
I'm afraid you just do not understand the rules of that game.
A.
***
I am entitled to go on with my linguistic
> experiment. You say nothing about my second
> Magdalenian test case, you drop again meta-babble.
> You are boring Peter T. Daniels to death with your
> replies to me, then yourself, while I remain unharmed,
> your meta-replies are so easy to counter.
***
It's quite obvious that your theory does not have anything like the
consistency of the PIE model,
even though i consider that the orthodox PIE model has a number of
problems.
A.
Dušan Vukotić
Really? What a wise opinion! Thanks :)
Dr. HotSalt
> Harlan Messinger <h.usenetremovert...@gavelcade.com> wrote:
> > On 1/10/2011 3:35 AM, Franz Gnaedinger wrote:
> > > On Jan 9, 9:47 pm, Du an Vukoti <dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> At the end of the 19th century Smythe Palmer wrote a book under the
> > >> title "Folk Etymology". On the page 448 he discussed the word 'world'
> > >> and "concluded" that world must be related to the English verb whirl;
> > >> i.e. a whirled world. He also mentioned that the people of Northampton
> > >> still have a phrase: "It'll be a world afore he's back!"
> > >> Anglo-Saxon "on worulda woruld" is equal to Latin "in secula
> > >> seculorum" (forever and ever) and it allegedly "explains" the
> > >> historical development of the word "world"; it may be said, of the
> > >> world which constantly whirls round and round.
> > >> The scientific opinion in this case is that the noun "world" is a
> > >> compound word: wer 'man' + ald 'age, old'. I do not find this much
> > >> convincing, because it sounds to me more folk-etymologically than some
> > >> "corrupted" and weird idea of a "secular" whirl-world.
>
> > > I trace English world back to Magdalenian BIR LAD,
> > > BIR meaning fur, LAD meaning hill, together naming
> > > the primeval hill in the cosmic fur of the goddess,
>
>
> Ginger Lynn!!!!
Drapes = carpet?
Dr. Hot"enquiring minds"Salt
Dušan Vukotić
Knut is not meaningless at all. What about Russian knut, Serbian
čuknuti, zveknuti (od zov 'call, cry'), ćaknuti, šuknuti means 'hit
stricken'. In Slavic, -knut puknut 'burst', -hnuti usahnuti, 'wither,
desiccate', -snut pisnuti 'shrill?, -čnut čučnuti always have tha same
meaning ─ gnati 'chase, go, hunt etc.).
Of course there are "counterpart" words in other IeE languages.
Harlan Messinger
I'm sorry if you don't understand it. You've no doubt seen explanations
and applications of it hundreds of times in this newsgroup.
> There are plenty of words that suggest a root like
> *diaeus, plenty words around this hypothetical root,
> and also Zeus was associated to this root, but now
> comes my challenge. I say that 'Zeus' has another root,
> relying on Derk Ohlenroth's decipherment of the Paistos
> Disk, where Zeus appears as Ss-Ey-R Sseyr, which
> I read as emphatic form of TYR meaning overcomer,
> as verb to overcome in the double sense of rule and
> give, while the alternative name of Zeus, Dios, is
> a derivative of *diaeus, but the origin of that word
> is DhAG meaning able, good in the sense of able.
> I have a neat and lean and clean-cut hypothesis
> to offer.
Yes, you've discussed this topic dozens of times. It's all a one-off, ad
hoc supposition that can't be replicated and doesn't lead to anything
else in any systematic way.
If you can't disprove it with all the ramba
> zamba of PIE with a thousand brillant scholars
> and all their papers and all their sound rules and
> everything, I am entitled to go on with my linguistic
> experiment.
You are entitled to call monkeys "starfish" and walk around with beans
in your ears. You are entitled to be ignorant, and you are entitled to
fail to understand how things work. No one cares what you're entitled
to. The issue here is what it is about PIE reconstruction that is
scientific, and how it differs from what you do, which isn't scientific,
and which isn't an experiment. All this is been explained to you.
> You say nothing about my second
> Magdalenian test case, you drop again meta-babble.
Because that's what your claims require as a response. AGAIN: If you
don't want meta-level responses, stop posting stuff that can't be
discussed at a scientific level.
António Marques
> AGAIN: If you
> don't want meta-level responses, stop posting stuff that can't be
> discussed at a scientific level.
Well, it sort of can...
1. Franz looks at the words he knows;
2. Using his four guidelines, Franz gets at a Magdalenian form which he
claims is the source of the words he knows;
3. From attested history we know that earlier forms of the words in question
are more different from Franz's hypotheses than the ones Franz used;
4. It stands to reason that Franz's hypotheses are wrong, unless he can
explain how Magdalenian forms which were similar to their modern descendants
first became different and then returned to their original shape.
Harlan Messinger
I suspect that Franz considers that a meta-level argument. If an
argument is based on facts and leads to the firm conclusion that he's
wrong, to him that defines it as a meta-level argument.
Franz Gnaedinger
> H
> 1. Franz looks at the words he knows;
Also PIE scholars look at the words they know.
> 2. Using his four guidelines, Franz gets at a Magdalenian form which he
> claims is the source of the words he knows;
Using my four laws of Magdalenian I mined groups
of Magdalenian words - the big difference to PIE is
that Magdalenian words come in groups. And then
I find more and more derivatives of my Magdalenian
words. Some of them have very many derivatives
also of the second and third degree.
> 3. From attested history we know that earlier forms of the words in question
> are more different from Franz's hypotheses than the ones Franz used;
Here you have to give an example, otherwise your
comment is worthless.
> 4. It stands to reason that Franz's hypotheses are wrong, unless he can
> explain how Magdalenian forms which were similar to their modern descendants
> first became different and then returned to their original shape.
I spoke many times of oscillations of words
around their place in the verbal morphospace.
And again, you have to mention an example.
Don't you dare mention an example? These
meta-discussions have more and more of
a malicious aspect. Never getting to a concrete
example forces me to say itall over and over
again. You hope to tire me. But I must say that
you are the ones to blame of an infertile discussion.
Always and forever avoiding a concrete example
and a truly scientific discussion. In case you should
refer to the false accusation of my second stalker
I cleared that question, by a long quote from Grimm's
Wörterbuch and a preamble. What example do you
have in mind? If you can't come up with a concrete
example I consider you incompetent and impotent,
as Harlan Messinger.
Fánaí Gaelach na nGleannta
> On Jan 14, 4:30 pm, António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
>
> > H
> > 1. Franz looks at the words he knows;
>
> Also PIE scholars look at the words they know.
>
> > 2. Using his four guidelines, Franz gets at a Magdalenian form which he
> > claims is the source of the words he knows;
>
> Using my four laws of Magdalenian I mined groups
> of Magdalenian words - the big difference to PIE is
> that Magdalenian words come in groups. And then
> I find more and more derivatives of my Magdalenian
> words. Some of them have very many derivatives
> also of the second and third degree.
>
> > 3. From attested history we know that earlier forms of the words in question
> > are more different from Franz's hypotheses than the ones Franz used;
>
> Here you have to give an example, otherwise your
> comment is worthless.
You were given an example, "veröld". You of course explained that
away.
Fánaí Gaelach na nGleannta
wrote:
Or he will dismiss the argument with some improvised explanation, as
happened with veröld.
Fánaí Gaelach na nGleannta
wrote:
And while we are at it: you were told that the Arabic word for Arab
begins with a consonant, the 'ayn consonant, which is absent from your
reconstruction.
Harlan Messinger
> On Jan 14, 4:30 pm, António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
>> H
>> 1. Franz looks at the words he knows;
>
> Also PIE scholars look at the words they know.
>
>> 2. Using his four guidelines, Franz gets at a Magdalenian form which he
>> claims is the source of the words he knows;
>
> Using my four laws of Magdalenian I mined groups
> of Magdalenian words
Remember what I've pointed out to you about how, when people tell you
what's faulty about the things you write, writing them over and over
*again* doesn't remove the faults? As always "mined" = "made up" when
you use it in this context. This will always and forever be true, no
matter how many times you say it.
> - the big difference to PIE is
> that Magdalenian words come in groups.
You made up a bunch of imaginary words that you constructed to be
arranged in groups.
> And then
> I find
Make up. Ad hoc, every one of them.
> more and more derivatives of my Magdalenian
> words. Some of them have very many derivatives
> also of the second and third degree.
Yes, this is how detailed works of fiction are created.
>> 3. From attested history we know that earlier forms of the words in question
>> are more different from Franz's hypotheses than the ones Franz used;
>
> Here you have to give an example, otherwise your
> comment is worthless.
We've all seen the attested history. I, for one, don't need him to
repeat any examples, since I've seen them myself and I know what he's
talking about.
>> 4. It stands to reason that Franz's hypotheses are wrong, unless he can
>> explain how Magdalenian forms which were similar to their modern descendants
>> first became different and then returned to their original shape.
>
> I spoke many times of oscillations of words
> around their place in the verbal morphospace.
This last sentence of yours has no meaning anywhere but in your mind.
> And again, you have to mention an example.
Example of what?
> Don't you dare mention an example? These
> meta-discussions have more and more of
> a malicious aspect. Never getting to a concrete
> example forces me to say itall over and over
> again.
Nothing forces you to repeat it, and, again, repeating that which is
flawed never removes the flaws, so your repetitions are not only not
forced, but a waste of time.
> You hope to tire me. But I must say that
> you are the ones to blame of an infertile discussion.
No, that's you who's to blame. Come up with something that can be
discussed in the manner in which you'd like it to be discussed, and the
situation will change. Keep repeating things that are incapable of
bearing scientific discussion, and as many times as you do, that is how
many times the result will displease you.
anal...@hotmail.com
> At the end of the 19th century Smythe Palmer wrote a book under the
> title "Folk Etymology". On the page 448 he discussed the word 'world'
> and "concluded" that world must be related to the English verb whirl;
> i.e. a whirled world. He also mentioned that the people of Northampton
> still have a phrase: "It'll be a world afore he's back!"
> Anglo-Saxon "on worulda woruld" is equal to Latin "in secula
> seculorum" (forever and ever) and it allegedly "explains" the
> historical development of the word "world"; it may be said, of the
> world which constantly whirls round and round.
> The scientific opinion in this case is that the noun "world" is a
> compound word: wer 'man' + ald 'age, old'. I do not find this much
> convincing, because it sounds to me more folk-etymologically than some
> "corrupted" and weird idea of a "secular" whirl-world.
>
It is a near certainty that it is from the Sanskrit root "vrt" which
has many meanings that apply to the concept of "the world"
to turn ,to live, to abide, to dwell (aryavarta = abode of the aryas),
to be existent (vartamana = present tense).
Interestingly among the dozens of synonyms of "the world' in Sanskrit
none corresponds through "plausible sound change' .
pauljk
"knout" != "knut"
New words you mention are a hotch-potch of different words,
different roots. Nothing to do with -sek- meaning "cut".
I am done with this thread, horse is dead and burried.
pjk
benl...@ihug.co.nz
wrote:
> On Jan 9, 3:47 pm, Du¹an Vukotiæ <dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > At the end of the 19th century Smythe Palmer wrote a book under the
> > title "Folk Etymology". On the page 448 he discussed the word 'world'
> > and "concluded" that world must be related to the English verb whirl;
> > i.e. a whirled world. He also mentioned that the people of Northampton
> > still have a phrase: "It'll be a world afore he's back!"
> > Anglo-Saxon "on worulda woruld" is equal to Latin "in secula
> > seculorum" (forever and ever) and it allegedly "explains" the
> > historical development of the word "world"; it may be said, of the
> > world which constantly whirls round and round.
> > The scientific opinion in this case is that the noun "world" is a
> > compound word: wer 'man' + ald 'age, old'. I do not find this much
> > convincing, because it sounds to me more folk-etymologically than some
> > "corrupted" and weird idea of a "secular" whirl-world.
>
> > DV
>
> It is a near certainty that it is from the Sanskrit root "vrt" which
> has many meanings that apply to the concept of "the world"
>
> to turn,
PIE *wert...as in uni-verse.
to live, to abide, to dwell (aryavarta = abode of the aryas),
> to be existent (vartamana = present tense).
For "turn" > "go around" > "dwell" cf. PIE *kwel?
>
> Interestingly among the dozens of synonyms of "the world' in Sanskrit
> none corresponds through "plausible sound change' .
...to what?
Franz Gnaedinger
> Zeus derives from *dyew-s.
>
> I'm afraid you just do not understand the rules of that game.
So you say the proto-form of the Zeus name was *dyew-s.
My books at home say it was *dyeus and dieus. If I went
to my library I would find still further versions. Now what is it,
*dyew-s or *dyeus or *dieus (or or or) ? Sound rules have
a deplorably limited range of validity and reliability. If we
had sound l a w s - German Lautgesetze - we could go
far back in time, but we have only sound rules that handle
regular sound shifts while omitting irregular cases
(a pleonasm in itself, for the regular cases are the ones
that are stated by the rules - in other words, the sound
rules make their own reality, which is then all too often
counfounded with the actual or real reality). Honest PIE
scholars admit that reconstructing a PIE form is only
half scientific, for the other half a question of lucky
guesses. And then you have to test a reconstruction,
which poses another problem, as we can't make
predictions, only retrodictions. Homer gave Zeus.
The Ilias was edited not before 2,800 years ago.
Now imagine that by some miracle we came upon
an older Greek text, say, 3,650 years old, providing
us with an earlier form of the Zeus name. According
to PIE, this name would be somewhere between
Homeric Zeus and PIE *dyew-s or *dyeus or *dieus
or or or ... Ta daa, we do have such a Greek text,
about 3,650 year old, some 900 years older than
the Ilias: the Phaistos Disc deciphered by Derk
Ohlenroth, and it names the god twice, in the form
of Sseyr --- a long way from the retrodicted forms
*dyew-s or *dyeus or *dieus or or or. And here is
where Magdalenian comes in. I derive Sseyr from
TYR meaning overcomer, as verb to overcome
in the double sense of rule and give, and the
historical development was Magdalenian TYR
anal...@hotmail.com
wrote:
OK - it is surprising that nobody seems to have pointed out these
possibilities.
>
> > Interestingly among the dozens of synonyms of "the world' in Sanskrit
> > none corresponds through "plausible sound change' .
>
> ...to what?- Hide quoted text -
"world."
>
> - Show quoted text -
Franz Gnaedinger
>
> PIE *wert...as in uni-verse.
Latin universum is composed of unus 'one' and verto
'I turn', meaning: (all) turned into one, an idea not far
from the one of the early world in form of the Primeval
Hill in the Cosmic Fur of the goddess BIR GID,
contained in the formula BIR LAD, fur BIR hill LAD,
hypothetical origin of English world. Greek kosmos
is of a different build, KOS MmOS, heavenly vault
KOS (comparative form of KOD for tent, hut) offspring
MmOS, all the life under the sky, all the children of
the heavenly father ... My claim is that BIR LAD,
a Mesolithic compound important in the Göbekli Tepe
myth of origin, was preserved for a very long time
but no longer understood in the Christian era and
therefore reinterpreted, along Greek kosmos and
Gothic manaseþs, literally the seed of mankind,
the district of men who have been begotten for
a long time, since the olden times. BIR became
Latin vir 'man', and LAD was turned into ald 'old',
however, the sheer number of variations, here
compiled from Grimm's Wörterbuch
welt weralt werolt werult weruldi werelt werelti
werelte werilt worolt werlt werlet werlit werlint
werlnt werlet weltt weldtt welth werlte welte
werold weruld warold worold waroldi woroldi
warelt werrelt werhilt wereld werlt werlde warlt
warlit werrelt warld wrald wrauld rauld ruald
wrâld wraeld wrâd wràl wrl wrāll werld wārel
warrelt werreld wereld woruld worold woreld
world worold weorold weoreld weoruld weorld
wereld werld werd woruld woreld world väruld
värald väreld värild värld werldh werll värld
vereld verd(en) verd-en verd wilt wölt walt wēlt
wǣlt wäilt wält weald weld wealt węəlt wjəlt
wlt wiärlt węǫut (vocalized l) woit berlt barlt
vædlt værlt wald wæld wäld wöld
didn't really stick, werold turned into a younger but
frequent werlet close to the original BIR LAD, and
we even see the former B- return in the forms of
berlt and barlt, so we have here a case of what
I call an oscillation within the verbal morphospace.
In my opinion, BIR meaning fur also accounts for
bear and Latin vir as the virile man who can take
it up with a bear (comparable to the master bull
hunter MAS who became Latin masculus 'little
man', visualized in a drawing in the cave Le
Gabillou, where a small man confronts a giant
bull, a case of a psychological perspective).
Furthermore we have BIR whool whorl and whirl,
wherefrom PIE *wert- 'turn'. In Indo-Iranian this
word has specific associations with chariotry,
e.g. Sogdanian wrtu 'chariot' or Mitanni -wartanna
'lap around a horse track' (Mallory and Adams
2006). Old Church Slavonic vriteti se means
to draw around. Sanskrit vrt 'live, abide, dwell'
may have the meaning of a circumscribed
(drawn around) district where the people dwell.
This goes along with CO OC LOP *kwekwlos
wheel chakra, namely the wall LOP of a fortified
settlement (POL) with guards along the wall,
right eye OC, and the mastermind or ruler
in the center, he of the attentive mind CO,
naming an early city, for example Dimini or
the many round cities in the nation of towns
in the Transural, and equating them with a wheel.
CO OC LOP also accounts for a cyclopic wall,
and for Cyclops, the most famous cyclops being
Polyphem who resembled more a wooded hill
than a man who eats bread, Homeric symbol of
Troy, his one eye the acropolis, his body downtown
Troy VIIa that provided protected shelter for 5,000
to 10,000 people, his cave the harbor on the Besik
Bay, his sheep and goats foreign ships, their milk
the precious cargo of the ships, beautiful Helen
of the white arms the symbol of tin, by then most
precious, Helen sailing on the swift Greek ships
that were symbolized by horses ...
Etymology is not a game for boys; it is a serious
task for wise men with a real understanding of
the human past.
Peter T. Daniels
> On Jan 14, 11:06 am, yangg <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
>
>
> > No.
> > Zeus derives from *dyew-s.
>
> > Sound rules is precisely the equivalent of being tested.
> > I'm afraid you just do not understand the rules of that game.
>
> So you say the proto-form of the Zeus name was *dyew-s.
> My books at home say it was *dyeus and dieus. If I went
> to my library I would find still further versions. Now what is it,
> *dyew-s or *dyeus or *dieus (or or or) ? Sound rules have
> a deplorably limited range of validity and reliability. If we
If you were to look _very, very closely_ at the "dieus" you found, you
would see that there is an arc beneath the i and the u (unless you are
looking, as is your wont, at a Swiss newspaper or a BBC website, which
might not know the difference). The letters i and u with an arc
beneath are _exactly equivalent_ to the letters y (or j) and w
respectively.
> had sound l a w s - German Lautgesetze - we could go
> far back in time,
That is still your own misunderstanding.
As has been told to you time and time again, Lautgesetze are not like
physical laws that emerge from the properties or nature of matter and
energy. Laut"gesetze" are formalizations of observations of _great
regularity_ of _correspondences between attested items of data_.
> but we have only sound rules that handle
> regular sound shifts while omitting irregular cases
Have you never heard of Grimm, Werner, or Grassmann (for instance),
who discovered regularities in the apparent regularities?
> (a pleonasm in itself, for the regular cases are the ones
> that are stated by the rules - in other words, the sound
> rules make their own reality, which is then all too often
> counfounded with the actual or real reality).
Absolutely not. As has been explained to you many, many times, the
"sound rules," as you call them, are _observed regularities in the
data_. They do not predict the future. They lead one to expect to find
further examples of observed regularity in additional data from past
states of languages.
> Honest PIE
> scholars admit that reconstructing a PIE form is only
> half scientific, for the other half a question of lucky
> guesses. And then you have to test a reconstruction,
No, you do not "test" a reconstruction. You see whether a proposal for
reconstruction is consistent with the large mass of collected data.
> which poses another problem, as we can't make
> predictions, only retrodictions. Homer gave Zeus.
> The Ilias was edited not before 2,800 years ago.
> Now imagine that by some miracle we came upon
> an older Greek text, say, 3,650 years old, providing
> us with an earlier form of the Zeus name. According
> to PIE, this name would be somewhere between
> Homeric Zeus and PIE *dyew-s or *dyeus or *dieus
> or or or ... Ta daa, we do have such a Greek text,
> about 3,650 year old, some 900 years older than
> the Ilias: the Phaistos Disc deciphered by Derk
> Ohlenroth, and it names the god twice, in the form
> of Sseyr ---
Even if there were some way of arriving at <Sseyr> (whatever that
might translate to in phonetic substance), how would you know that it
can be equated to the head of the Olympic pantheon, the fellow who
hurls thunderbolts and seduces women and boys in a variety of animal
and mineral shapes?
> a long way from the retrodicted forms
> *dyew-s or *dyeus or *dieus or or or. And here is
> where Magdalenian comes in. I derive Sseyr from
> TYR meaning overcomer, as verb to overcome
> in the double sense of rule and give, and the
> historical development was Magdalenian TYR
> emphatic Middle Helladic Sseyr Doric Sseus
> Homeric Zeus.
There is no <Ss> in Doric.
Fánaí Gaelach na nGleannta
Yes. Also note "neamhshaolta" (non-"saolta", un-"saolta") in the
meaning "supernatural, related to the world of ghosts and spirits".
Fánaí Gaelach na nGleannta
> On Jan 11, 2:08 pm, Fánaí Gaelach na nGleannta <craoibhi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 11 tammi, 14:12, António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
>
> > > John Atkinson wrote (10-01-2011 05:49):
>
> > > > Just about every branch of IE has different word(s) for "world", but lots
> > > > of them are calques, often associated with the spread of Christianity,
> > > > and, earlier, Greek philosophy. Just some of them:
>
> > > > (...)
> > > > Celtic: domun (from "bottom, foundation")
>
> > > Isn't the celtic supposed to be *bitu (with whatever meaning)?
>
> > In Irish, there are domhan (< domun), which is the modern word, and
> > etymologist, but to me domhan looks very much the same as domhain
> > etc., to be.
>
> From *dubno- 'world, deep' (OIr. domun, Gaulish Dumnorix 'World
> king'). Of course, this may raise some questions
If it raises questions, shoot them. Being a veliki srpski ratnik, you
sure got a gun.
Toni Keskitalo
>> seknout 'cut'?
>
> No, because they don't. For the hell of me, I cannot think why should
> those two Czech verbs sound almost the same to me. [h] in "sehnout"
> and [k] in "seknout" don't sound similar.
>
> "hnout" (to move) is the shortest form of a meaningful perfective infinitive.
> "seknout" (to cut) is the shortest form of a meaningful perfective infinitive.
> "knout" is meaningless nonsense. "se-" in "seknout" is not a prefix.
Next he might say that Czech "sek" is se- + k. :p
Toni
Dušan Vukotić
> "pauljk" <paul.kr...@clear.net.nz> writes:
> > "Du an Vukoti " <dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I think you do not understand the way how the words evolved from its
primeval agglutinated form. For instance, do you know that Slavic
sekira (Cz. sekera, OSl. секыра, Lat. securis) is related to the verb
skratiti 'curtail, abbreviate' and noun skraćenje 'truncation'. In
fact, English shortning is the same word as Serbian skraćenje/skratiti
(also Serb. kratiti 'shorten', s/krojiti 'cut out, tailor). All those
words appeared "out of the circle" (Serb. is-kružiti, is-krojiti 'cut
out'; Lat. ex-care;). Hence Serbian sakriti 'hide' (Lat. secretus
'separate, secret'; Cz. zakrýt, skrýt 'hide', Russ. скрыть/крыть).
Something similar happened to Slavic seknuti (cf. Serb. za-kinuti 'to
cut off', is-kinuti 'to cut out', is-kidati 'to tear off').
DV
Dušan Vukotić
How sad that you are unable to understand that Czech protnout is the
same word as Serbian prekinuti 'to cut across' (Cz. tnout 'cut');
Czech utnout 'chop off' = Serbian otkinuti 'chop off''.
DV
Franz Gnaedinger
>
> If you were to look _very, very closely_ at the "dieus" you found, you
> would see that there is an arc beneath the i and the u (unless you are
> looking, as is your wont, at a Swiss newspaper or a BBC website, which
> might not know the difference). The letters i and u with an arc
> beneath are _exactly equivalent_ to the letters y (or j) and w
> respectively.
So there are still at least two forms, *dyeus
and *dyew-s - but why the complicated i
when the sound can simply be given as y ?
> That is still your own misunderstanding.
>
> As has been told to you time and time again, Lautgesetze are not like
> physical laws that emerge from the properties or nature of matter and
> energy. Laut"gesetze" are formalizations of observations of _great
> regularity_ of _correspondences between attested items of data_.
>
> Have you never heard of Grimm, Werner, or Grassmann (for instance),
> who discovered regularities in the apparent regularities?
I learned Grimm's Lautgesetze in 1964, as I recall,
also the exceptions to those laws - if there was a law
of gravity of the same kind, it might state that pears
and apples fall from their trees while apricots and
cherries soar.
> Absolutely not. As has been explained to you many, many times, the
> "sound rules," as you call them, are _observed regularities in the
> data_. They do not predict the future. They lead one to expect to find
> further examples of observed regularity in additional data from past
> states of languages.
>
> No, you do not "test" a reconstruction. You see whether a proposal for
> reconstruction is consistent with the large mass of collected data.
>
> Even if there were some way of arriving at <Sseyr> (whatever that
> might translate to in phonetic substance), how would you know that it
> can be equated to the head of the Olympic pantheon, the fellow who
> hurls thunderbolts and seduces women and boys in a variety of animal
> and mineral shapes?
>
> There is no <Ss> in Doric.
Derk Ohlenroth relies on Wilhelm Larfeld who says
there is no doubt that the Zeus name on two very
ancient clay tablets from Korinth, preserved in the
Berlin Antiquarium, are to be read as Sseus, and he
says that also Thera knew the sharpened sibilant ss.
Derk Ohlenroth (in my translation): The 'Sseus' name
form, obviously offered by the A-verse of the (Phaistos)
disc, finds a counterpart in Korinthian and Theraean,
i.e. Doric epigraphic evidence whose dialectal peculiarity
is dated to before 600 (BC) by Larfeld. (In footnotes
he adds that pictures of the inscriptions from Korinth
and Thera can be seen in Margherita Guarducci,
Epigrafia Graeca, Volume 1, Rome 1967; pages
174 figure 52 and 350f figure 177.) - Why don't you
read the book by Derk Ohlenroth? I recommend it
since many years, even told you the lending number
of the volume in the Public Library NY, and offered
to tell you the way to that library, and a free course
in reading, and to send you photocopies of some of
the pages, but you found every silly excuse avoiding
the book, pretending you can judge it without having
much as laid eyes on it. Ohlenroth could give you
a memorable lesson on early writing, a chapter
missing in your book on The World's Writing Systems.
Peter T. Daniels
> On Jan 15, 2:31 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > If you were to look _very, very closely_ at the "dieus" you found, you
> > would see that there is an arc beneath the i and the u (unless you are
> > looking, as is your wont, at a Swiss newspaper or a BBC website, which
> > might not know the difference). The letters i and u with an arc
> > beneath are _exactly equivalent_ to the letters y (or j) and w
> > respectively.
>
> So there are still at least two forms, *dyeus
> and *dyew-s - but why the complicated i
How are they "two forms"? Because one shows the internal structure
with the hyphen, and the other doesn't?
> when the sound can simply be given as y ?
(1) Because there is a phonological relationship between the vowels i
u and the semivowels y w, and this is always present to the
consciousness when they are written with the same letter plus a
diacritic (the German scholars who devised the notation were familiar
with diacritics on letters; English scholars were slow to abandon
their English-orthography approach to exotic languages).
(2) The letter w will be interpreted as [v] by a German reader at
first glance, and that mistake is avoided by using u-arc; similarly
the letter y had a very restricted use in German (though less
restricted than now), and the letter j has three different standard
interpretations in the three major European languages (and doesn't
even exist as such in Latin), hence the most practical alternative is
i-arc.
> > That is still your own misunderstanding.
>
> > As has been told to you time and time again, Lautgesetze are not like
> > physical laws that emerge from the properties or nature of matter and
> > energy. Laut"gesetze" are formalizations of observations of _great
> > regularity_ of _correspondences between attested items of data_.
>
> > Have you never heard of Grimm, Werner, or Grassmann (for instance),
> > who discovered regularities in the apparent regularities?
>
> I learned Grimm's Lautgesetze in 1964, as I recall,
> also the exceptions to those laws - if there was a law
> of gravity of the same kind, it might state that pears
> and apples fall from their trees while apricots and
> cherries soar.
And this is why Harlan and Panu and so many others become infuriated
with you.
Laut"gesetze" are nothing like physical "laws"; and if it were
observed that, say, helium gas always rises in the atmosphere, and
xenon gas always sinks, the physicists would be able to discover the
law that governed that behavior.
> missing in your book on The World's Writing Systems.-
I have no idea what your fantasy that the Phaistos disk can be
interpreted (let alone that any one interpretation is better than any
other) has to do with the history and nature of Indo-European
linguistics.
Give me a link to a photograph of an inscription showing two adjacent
sigmas at the beginning of a word.
Harlan Messinger
> On Jan 14, 11:06 am, yangg<fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>>
>> No.
>> Zeus derives from *dyew-s.
>>
>> Sound rules is precisely the equivalent of being tested.
>> I'm afraid you just do not understand the rules of that game.
>
> So you say the proto-form of the Zeus name was *dyew-s.
> My books at home say it was *dyeus and dieus. If I went
> to my library I would find still further versions. Now what is it,
> *dyew-s or *dyeus or *dieus (or or or) ?
Is the derivative of f(x) with respect to x
d(f(x))/dx
or
f'(x)
? It depends on the convention being used. The answer to your question
is the same.