Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [tied] Seeking Information Please

Expand Messages
  • Piotr Gasiorowski
    I suppose you realise that this tridic scheme is somewhat artificial and thet with the exception of the druid word the rest of those Gaulish terms are
    Message 1 of 29 , Aug 31, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      I suppose you realise that this tridic scheme is somewhat artificial and thet with the exception of the 'druid' word the rest of those "Gaulish" terms are actually Latin.
       
      The Celtic word <druid> is etymologised as *dru-wid-, where the second part is the PIE root *weid- 'see, know' (see Old Indo-Aryan su-vid- 'knowing well'), and the first part is an element originally meaning 'strong, solid' that came to function as an intensive prefix. You can interpret *dru-wid- as 'he who knows/sees a lot'.
       
      <eques> (equit-) and <mi:les> (mi:lit-) are the Latin military terms for 'cavalryman' and 'infantryman'. The equites ('knights') were of course a social order as well, but the military meaning is more basic than the political one, and the word is of course derived from <equus> 'horse'. I don't know where the <mi:l-> root of <mi:lit-> comes from. There is no obvious Latin or IE base (any guesses, List?), and it's hard to tell if the word comes from Etruscan, as sometimes claimed.
       
      The quirites were Roman 'civilians', i.e. the citizens of Rome in their civil capacity. Tradition explains the term as 'inhabitants of Cures' (a Sabine town), a body of whom, under their king Titus Tatius, settled in early Rome (remember the rape story?). <curis, quiris> is also a word for 'spear' (thought to be of Sabine origin), so it's likely that the original meaning of <quirit-> is 'spearman'.
       
      Last time I checked, the jury was still out on whether Old Indo-Aryan <brahman-> and Latin <flamen> were related or just similar-looking. If cognate, they would have to be reconstructed as something like *bHlag^H-men- (thus in Pokorny's dictionary), the root *bHlag^H- being otherwise unknown and so conveniently obscure that you may attribute any meaning to it.
       
      <plebs, ple:be:s> 'the common people' comes from PIE *pleh1-dHw- 'plenty, multitude', cf. Gk. ple:tHo: 'be full', ple:tho:re: 'fullness, satiety', from a very common root meaning 'fill' (cf. English full < *plh1-no-).
       
      Piotr
       
       
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 6:30 PM
      Subject: [tied] Seeking Information Please

      Greetings all,

      I have just recently joind this list, and I must say, after reading through
      my first batch of thirty-somthing emails, I feel slightly reluctant to pose
      my question ... it seems laughable compared to some of the conversations
      going on here.

      But, since this list is dedicated to IE history, linguistics and culture,
      damnd be my pride, I need sourcecs ;-)

      What I am looking for are some other comparisons of IE linguisticly related
      peoples for the following:

      Rome
      ----------------
      Flamines (priests)
      Milites (warriors)
      Quirites (herders/cultivators)

      Gaul
      ---------------
      Druids (priests)
      Equites (warriors)
      Plebes (herders/cultivators)

    • Greaghoir MacIain
      Greetings... Pitor, Thank you for your answer, though it doesnt really answer my question, your point on linquistics is appreciated and well taken. Thank you.
      Message 2 of 29 , Aug 31, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Greetings...
         
        Pitor,
        Thank you for your answer, though it doesnt really answer my question, your point on linquistics is appreciated and well taken. Thank you.
         
        Perhaps I should reword my question(s). Let me try again.
         
        Does any one happen to know of any other Indo-European linguisticly related cultures, other than Celtic and Roman, whose societal castes/classes corespond to:
         
        1) religious functionaries
        2) warriors
        3) landowner/merchent
         
        If so, what are the cultures, and what are the names of the classes/castes.
         
        I am not opposed to reading and learning on my own, so if you only want to give sources thats fine. I am limited at this point to English and some Gaidhlig.
         
        Thanks again,
        Gregg
      • Piotr Gasiorowski
        The two authors most famous for their work on the tripartite hierarchisation of the IE social structure and religious pantheon are Emile Benveniste (_Le
        Message 3 of 29 , Aug 31, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          The two authors most famous for their work on the tripartite hierarchisation of the IE social structure and religious pantheon are Emile Benveniste (_Le vocabulaire des institutions indo-européennes_, 1969, Paris: Minuit; English translation: _Indo-European Language and Society_, 1973, Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami Press) and Georges Dumézil (_L'idéologie tripartite des Indo-Européens_, 1958, Bruxelles: LATOMUS; _Les dieux souverains des Indo-Européens_, 1977, Paris: Gallimard). Their triadic patterns have been reviewed, reinforced, refuted, reformulated, etc. in numerous later publications.
           
          Piotr
           
           
           
          ----- Original Message -----
          Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 10:25 PM
          Subject: Re: [tied] Seeking Information Please

          Greetings...
           
          Pitor,
          Thank you for your answer, though it doesnt really answer my question, your point on linquistics is appreciated and well taken. Thank you.
           
          Perhaps I should reword my question(s). Let me try again.
           
          Does any one happen to know of any other Indo-European linguisticly related cultures, other than Celtic and Roman, whose societal castes/classes corespond to:
           
          1) religious functionaries
          2) warriors
          3) landowner/merchent
           
          If so, what are the cultures, and what are the names of the classes/castes.
           
          I am not opposed to reading and learning on my own, so if you only want to give sources thats fine. I am limited at this point to English and some Gaidhlig.
           
          Thanks again,
          Gregg
        • Greaghoir MacIain
          Thank you Piotr. The two authors most famous for their work on the tripartite hierarchisation of the IE social structure and religious pantheon are Emile
          Message 4 of 29 , Aug 31, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            Thank you Piotr.
             
            The two authors most famous for their work on the tripartite hierarchisation of the IE social structure and religious pantheon are Emile Benveniste (_Le vocabulaire des institutions indo-européennes_, 1969, Paris: Minuit; English translation: _Indo-European Language and Society_, 1973, Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami Press) and Georges Dumézil (_L'idéologie tripartite des Indo-Européens_, 1958, Bruxelles: LATOMUS; _Les dieux souverains des Indo-Européens_, 1977, Paris: Gallimard). Their triadic patterns have been reviewed, reinforced, refuted, reformulated, etc. in numerous later publications.
             
            Piotr
          • Piotr Gasiorowski
            P.S. Excuse the French (:-)), but some of the important sources have not been translated into English. Dumézil s books _Ancient Roman Religion_ and _Gods of
            Message 5 of 29 , Aug 31, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              P.S. Excuse the French (:-)), but some of the important sources have not been translated into English. Dumézil's books _Ancient Roman Religion_ and _Gods of the Ancient Northmen_ are available in English, and though they deal with specific historical cultures the IE background is present there as well. Benveniste's collection of essays (referenced below) is still a great read.
               
              Piotr
               
               
              ----- Original Message -----
              Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 11:05 PM
              Subject: Re: [tied] Seeking Information Please

              The two authors most famous for their work on the tripartite hierarchisation of the IE social structure and religious pantheon are Emile Benveniste (_Le vocabulaire des institutions indo-européennes_, 1969, Paris: Minuit; English translation: _Indo-European Language and Society_, 1973, Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami Press) and Georges Dumézil (_L'idéologie tripartite des Indo-Européens_, 1958, Bruxelles: LATOMUS; _Les dieux souverains des Indo-Européens_, 1977, Paris: Gallimard). Their triadic patterns have been reviewed, reinforced, refuted, reformulated, etc. in numerous later publications.
               
              Piotr
               
               
               
              ----- Original Message -----
              Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 10:25 PM
              Subject: Re: [tied] Seeking Information Please

              Greetings...
               
              Pitor,
              Thank you for your answer, though it doesnt really answer my question, your point on linquistics is appreciated and well taken. Thank you.
               
              Perhaps I should reword my question(s). Let me try again.
               
              Does any one happen to know of any other Indo-European linguisticly related cultures, other than Celtic and Roman, whose societal castes/classes corespond to:
               
              1) religious functionaries
              2) warriors
              3) landowner/merchent
               
              If so, what are the cultures, and what are the names of the classes/castes.
               
              I am not opposed to reading and learning on my own, so if you only want to give sources thats fine. I am limited at this point to English and some Gaidhlig.
               
              Thanks again,
              Gregg


              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
            • Greaghoir MacIain
              Thanks twice ;-) Gregg P.S. Excuse the French (:-)), but some of the important sources have not been translated into English. Dumézil s books _Ancient Roman
              Message 6 of 29 , Aug 31, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                Thanks twice ;-)
                Gregg
                P.S. Excuse the French (:-)), but some of the important sources have not been translated into English. Dumézil's books _Ancient Roman Religion_ and _Gods of the Ancient Northmen_ are available in English, and though they deal with specific historical cultures the IE background is present there as well. Benveniste's collection of essays (referenced below) is still a great read.
                 Piotr 
              • guto rhys
                A few months ago Piotr touched on the PIE phoneme which gave both p and k in later reflexes. He mentioned something about a p with some velar element (I
                Message 7 of 29 , Aug 31, 2002
                • 0 Attachment

                  A few months ago Piotr touched on the PIE phoneme which gave both 'p' and 'k' in later reflexes. He mentioned something about a 'p' with some velar element (I think).

                  I was wondering if anyone has more information on this phoneme, its reflexes and especially whether it exists today in any language.

                  guto

                   



                  Do You Yahoo!?
                  Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
                • Miguel Carrasquer
                  On Sat, 31 Aug 2002 22:01:51 +0200, Piotr Gasiorowski ... My Latin dictionary connects mi:le(s)s (as mi:l-it- going in a crowd , cf. ped-it- going by foot ,
                  Message 8 of 29 , Aug 31, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Sat, 31 Aug 2002 22:01:51 +0200, Piotr Gasiorowski
                    <piotr.gasiorowski@...> wrote:

                    ><eques> (equit-) and <mi:les> (mi:lit-) are the Latin military terms for 'cavalryman'
                    >and 'infantryman'. The equites ('knights') were of course a social order as well,
                    >but the military meaning is more basic than the political one, and the word is of
                    >course derived from <equus> 'horse'. I don't know where the <mi:l-> root of <mi:lit->
                    >comes from. There is no obvious Latin or IE base (any guesses, List?), and it's hard
                    >to tell if the word comes from Etruscan, as sometimes claimed.

                    My Latin dictionary connects mi:le(s)s (as mi:l-it- "going in a crowd", cf.
                    ped-it- "going by foot", equ-it- "going by horse") with Grk. hómi:los (Aeol.
                    ómillos) "crowd", which in Boissacq is further linked to Skt. miláti "to come
                    together, meet, gather", me:las "meeting, relationship". PIE *h3mei- + -l- ?


                    =======================
                    Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
                    mcv@...
                  • Miguel Carrasquer
                    ... Must have been me. There is no doubt that PIE possessed a series of labiovelar consonants (*kW, *gW, *ghW), which become plain velars (satem-group; Old
                    Message 9 of 29 , Aug 31, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On Sat, 31 Aug 2002 14:33:08 -0700 (PDT), guto rhys <gutorhys@...> wrote:

                      >A few months ago Piotr touched on the PIE phoneme which gave both 'p' and 'k' in
                      >later reflexes. He mentioned something about a 'p' with some velar element (I think).

                      Must have been me. There is no doubt that PIE possessed a series of labiovelar
                      consonants (*kW, *gW, *ghW), which become plain velars (satem-group; Old Irish;
                      Greek), remain as labiovelars (Latin, Gothic, Ogham Irish, Linear B Greek) or
                      give labial consonants (Brythonic, Osco-Umbrian, Romanian, Greek).

                      In Germanic, however, there is a small number of roots which show *f, *b where
                      one would have expected *hw, *g(w). Some examples are: wolf, oven, leave,
                      liver, bid, from PIE *wl.kWos, *h2aukW-, *leikW-, *(l)ye(:)kWr-, *ghWedh-. My
                      hypothesis is that these words originally had labialized *pW, *bhW (note the
                      lack of *bW, as expected), which later mostly merged with *kW, *ghW, except in
                      Germanic, where the reflexes are as for *p, *bh.

                      It was objected that labialized labials are extremely rare in the world's
                      languages, which they are, but in languages where *i and *u have been lost
                      relatively recently (as e.g. in the NW Caucasian lgs., or as in PIE [where *i
                      and *u are indeed almost lacking as vowels]), one may expect the palatal and
                      labial feature of the lost vowels to have been transferred to the neighbouring
                      consonants, leading, amongst other things, to labialized labials. It is also to
                      be expected that the labialized labials will be the first to go (followed by the
                      labialized dentals), while labialized velars are a lot tougher to get rid of
                      (again, as seen in PIE, where only the *kW series maintained full phonological
                      status up to the breakup of PIE). Another objection was that there are no
                      parallels for a development *pW > *kW, which may or may not be true (in any
                      case, I don't know of any documented cases). However, the fact that the
                      development *kW > *p is extremely common, and that it's due to the large
                      acoustic similarity between *kW and *p, makes me feel quite confident that in a
                      language having *pW and *kW [of which there are not many, see above], the more
                      marked consonant (*pW) will tend to merge with the less marked and acoustically
                      quite similar *kW (just as in a language having *p and *kW, the more marked
                      consonant (*kW) will tend to merge with the less marked and acoustically quite
                      similar *p).

                      Note further that "Germanic *p (*b) ~ non-Germanic *kW (*ghW)" is actually an
                      over-simplification:

                      WOLF
                      - We have Germanic *kW > *ghW (Verner) in ON. ylgr < *wl.kWi: "she-wolf"
                      - We have *wl.p- in Latin lupus "wolf"; volpe:s "fox", Av. urupis "dog", raopis
                      "fox, jackal", Skt. lopa:s'á- "jackal, fox", Arm. aluês, Grk. alope:ks, Lith.
                      lãpe:, Latv. lapsa "fox".

                      OVEN
                      - We have Germanic *kW > *h(w) in Gothic aùhns "oven"
                      - We have *aupn- in Greek (h)ipnós, Bret. offen "Steintrog".

                      LEAVE
                      - We have Germanic *kW > *hw in Gothic leihWan, E. loan, etc.
                      - We have *leip- in Toch. lip- "übrigbleiben"

                      LIVER
                      - We probably have *lepr.t (although *lekWr.t is also possible) in Arm. leard
                      "liver"

                      BID
                      - We have *bheidh- Toch. B peti "Verehrung".

                      In other words, the tendency for **pW to become *kW also worked in Germanic,
                      while the retention of *pW (as *p, with loss of labialization) is not unknown
                      outside of Germanic either.


                      =======================
                      Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
                      mcv@...
                    • Glen Gordon
                      ... Wait, I forget... where does the word black come from? - gLeN _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail
                      Message 10 of 29 , Aug 31, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Piotr:
                        >Last time I checked, the jury was still out on whether Old Indo-Aryan
                        ><brahman-> and Latin <flamen> were related or just similar-looking. If
                        >cognate, they would have to be reconstructed as something like
                        >*bHlag^H-men- (thus in Pokorny's dictionary), the root *bHlag^H- being
                        >otherwise unknown
                        >and so conveniently obscure that you may attribute any meaning to it.

                        Wait, I forget... where does the word "black" come from?


                        - gLeN


                        _________________________________________________________________
                        Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
                      • Piotr Gasiorowski
                        *bHleg- ~ *bHlag- / *bHlog- burn , as in flagrant , phlegm , flame and phlogiston . OE blac still meant shining or pale rather than black (the
                        Message 11 of 29 , Sep 1, 2002
                        • 0 Attachment
                          *bHleg- ~ *bHlag- / *bHlog- 'burn', as in "flagrant", "phlegm", "flame" and "phlogiston". OE blac still meant 'shining' or 'pale' rather than 'black' (the original colour term was <sweart>). At the Indo-Aryan end we have <bHrgu->, a race of fire-beings. There are of course other similar roots that have to do with shining or burning, and perhaps they are all extension of *bHel- 'shine'. Still, *bHlag^H- remains difficult.
                           
                          Piotr
                           
                           
                           
                          ----- Original Message -----
                          Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2002 4:01 AM
                          Subject: Re: [tied] Seeking Information Please


                          Piotr:
                          >Last time I checked, the jury was still out on whether Old Indo-Aryan
                          ><brahman-> and Latin <flamen> were related or just similar-looking. If
                          >cognate, they would have to be reconstructed as something like
                          >*bHlag^H-men- (thus in Pokorny's dictionary), the root *bHlag^H- being
                          >otherwise unknown
                          >and so conveniently obscure that you may attribute any meaning to it.

                          Wait, I forget... where does the word "black" come from?
                        • guto rhys
                          Thanks for the comprenesive answer. This helps me a great deal with a subject which has long perplexed me. How far back does this push the separation between
                          Message 12 of 29 , Sep 1, 2002
                          • 0 Attachment

                            Thanks for the comprenesive answer. This helps me a great deal with a subject which has long perplexed me. How far back does this push the separation between p-Celtic and c-Celtic? 'Gaulish' had both, or was the difference in pronunciation a mere insignificant dialectal difference?

                            Guto

                             Miguel Carrasquer wrote:

                            On Sat, 31 Aug 2002 14:33:08 -0700 (PDT), guto rhys <gutorhys@...> wrote:

                            >A few months ago Piotr touched on the PIE phoneme which gave both 'p' and 'k' in
                            >later reflexes. He mentioned something about a 'p' with some velar element (I think).

                            Must have been me.  There is no doubt that PIE possessed a series of labiovelar
                            consonants (*kW, *gW, *ghW), which become plain velars (satem-group; Old Irish;
                            Greek), remain as labiovelars (Latin, Gothic, Ogham Irish, Linear B Greek) or
                            give labial consonants (Brythonic, Osco-Umbrian, Romanian, Greek). 

                            In Germanic, however, there is a small number of roots which show *f, *b where
                            one would have expected *hw, *g(w).  Some examples are: wolf, oven, leave,
                            liver, bid, from PIE *wl.kWos, *h2aukW-, *leikW-, *(l)ye(:)kWr-, *ghWedh-.  My
                            hypothesis is that these words originally had labialized *pW, *bhW (note the
                            lack of *bW, as expected), which later mostly merged with *kW, *ghW, except in
                            Germanic, where the reflexes are as for *p, *bh.

                            It was objected that labialized labials are extremely rare in the world's
                            languages, which they are, but in languages where *i and *u have been lost
                            relatively recently (as e.g. in the NW Caucasian lgs., or as in PIE [where *i
                            and *u are indeed almost lacking as vowels]), one may expect the palatal and
                            labial feature of the lost vowels to have been transferred to the neighbouring
                            consonants, leading, amongst other things, to labialized labials.  It is also to
                            be expected that the labialized labials will be the first to go (followed by the
                            labialized dentals), while labialized velars are a lot tougher to get rid of
                            (again, as seen in PIE, where only the *kW series maintained full phonological
                            status up to the breakup of PIE).  Another objection was that there are no
                            parallels for a development *pW > *kW, which may or may not be true (in any
                            case, I don't know of any documented cases).  However, the fact that the
                            development *kW > *p is extremely common, and that it's due to the large
                            acoustic similarity between *kW and *p, makes me feel quite confident that in a
                            language having *pW and *kW [of which there are not many, see above], the more
                            marked consonant (*pW) will tend to merge with the less marked and acoustically
                            quite similar *kW (just as in a language having *p and *kW, the more marked
                            consonant (*kW) will tend to merge with the less marked and acoustically quite
                            similar *p).

                            Note further that "Germanic *p (*b) ~ non-Germanic *kW (*ghW)" is actually an
                            over-simplification:

                            WOLF
                            - We have Germanic *kW > *ghW (Verner) in ON. ylgr < *wl.kWi: "she-wolf"
                            - We have *wl.p- in Latin lupus "wolf"; volpe:s "fox", Av. urupis "dog", raopis
                            "fox, jackal", Skt. lopa:s'�- "jackal, fox", Arm. alu�s, Grk. alope:ks, Lith.
                            l�pe:, Latv. lapsa "fox".

                            OVEN
                            - We have Germanic *kW > *h(w) in Gothic a�hns "oven"
                            - We have *aupn- in Greek (h)ipn�s, Bret. offen "Steintrog".

                            LEAVE
                            - We have Germanic *kW > *hw in Gothic leihWan, E. loan, etc.
                            - We have *leip- in Toch. lip- "�brigbleiben"

                            LIVER
                            - We probably have *lepr.t (although *lekWr.t is also possible) in Arm. leard
                            "liver"

                            BID
                            - We have *bheidh- Toch. B peti "Verehrung".

                            In other words, the tendency for **pW to become *kW also worked in Germanic,
                            while the retention of *pW (as *p, with loss of labialization) is not unknown
                            outside of Germanic either.


                            =======================
                            Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
                            mcv@...



                            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                            ns



                            Do You Yahoo!?
                            Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes

                          • Glen Gordon
                            ... Thanks for the input. And now a theory... What if *bHlagHmen- does in fact relate to *bHleg-? How? Am I mad? Perhaps. But here is the explanation. I still
                            Message 13 of 29 , Sep 1, 2002
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Piotr:
                              >*bHleg- ~ *bHlag- / *bHlog- 'burn', as in "flagrant", "phlegm",
                              >"flame" and "phlogiston". OE blac still meant 'shining' or 'pale'
                              >rather than 'black' (the original colour term was <sweart>). At the
                              >Indo-Aryan end we have <bHrgu->, a race of fire-beings. There are of
                              >course other similar roots that have to do with shining or burning,
                              >and perhaps they are all extension of *bHel- 'shine'. Still, *bHlag^H-
                              >remains difficult.

                              Thanks for the input. And now a theory...

                              What if *bHlagHmen- does in fact relate to *bHleg-? How? Am I mad?
                              Perhaps. But here is the explanation.

                              I still can't get it out of my head that, at some point in the
                              murky Pre-IE past (early Late IE, if you will), that voiced plain
                              stops that were immediately followed by an aspirate (either *h or
                              *x) often merged together as a single "voiced aspirate" phoneme.
                              Thus cluster sequences like *dx- or *dh- would end up becoming a
                              single phoneme *dH-. We should then see stuff like *daxnu- versus
                              *dHan-, let's say, and scratch our heads wondering why they look so
                              much alike but yet they are unrelated... or so one would assume.

                              We could also explain *bHlagHmen- in the same way. The *bHlagH-
                              in *bHlagHmen- could merely be *bHlag- + *-x- [transitive]. Hence,
                              the function of a *bHlagHmen- (< *bHlagx-men-) is to burn things...
                              Erh, well that admittedly sounds like a pyromaniac until one
                              realizes that "burning" is connected with concepts like "offerings"
                              and "ritual". Thus, it is a name very fitting for a priest devoted
                              to such things.

                              Just a thought, cuz I can't think of a better one.


                              - gLeN


                              _________________________________________________________________
                              MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
                              http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
                            • Piotr Gasiorowski
                              Do think of a better one, Glen. First, we need *g^H, not *gH, to account for , in principle. Even allowing for the possibility of *gH h and
                              Message 14 of 29 , Sep 1, 2002
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Do think of a better one, Glen. First, we need *g^H, not *gH, to account for <brahman->, in principle. Even allowing for the possibility of *gH > h and pointing to the actual example of duhitar- < *dHugh2te:r (with Iranian -g-) as a precedent, we'd still expect *brahiman in Indic.
                                 
                                Piotr
                                 
                                 
                                ----- Original Message -----
                                Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 4:13 AM
                                Subject: Re: [tied] Seeking Information Please


                                We could also explain *bHlagHmen- in the same way. The *bHlagH- in *bHlagHmen- could merely be *bHlag- + *-x- [transitive]. Hence, the function of a *bHlagHmen- (< *bHlagx-men-) is to burn things... Erh, well that admittedly sounds like a pyromaniac until one
                                realizes that "burning" is connected with concepts like "offerings" and "ritual". Thus, it is a name very fitting for a priest devoted to such things.

                                Just a thought, cuz I can't think of a better one.
                              • Glen Gordon
                                ... You misunderstood. First, My *gH is a **non-uvular** stop, traditionally seen as a **palatal** stop. Since we know that it is strongly unlikely that *gH
                                Message 15 of 29 , Sep 2, 2002
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  >Do think of a better one, Glen. First, we need *g^H, not
                                  >*gH,

                                  You misunderstood. First, My *gH is a **non-uvular** stop,
                                  traditionally seen as a **palatal** stop. Since we know
                                  that it is strongly unlikely that *gH was ever palatalized
                                  in Indo-European because of markedness issues, why must we
                                  continue to write it as such? Your first arguement has no
                                  bearing on anything because I'm indeed refering to the
                                  phoneme that you require, *g^H (ie: a non-uvular voiced
                                  aspirate stop).


                                  >Even allowing for the possibility of *gH > h and pointing
                                  >to the actual example of duhitar- < *dHugh2te:r (with
                                  >Iranian -g-) as a precedent, we'd still expect *brahiman
                                  >in Indic.

                                  The example of *dHugxte:r becoming /duhitar-/ shows that
                                  we started out with an Indo-European cluster *gx (not a
                                  single phoneme *gH) that changed to *gH^x at some point
                                  in Indo-Iranian, leaving *x to cause /i/ in Sanskrit.
                                  I'm refering to something different here.

                                  I said that in Indo-European itself, there may be
                                  instances of what were _already_ voiced aspirate stops
                                  that are the product of voiced plain stops plus laryngeal
                                  in some Pre-IE stage (more specifically, early Late IE).

                                  So... In the case of *bhlagHmen-, the merger of *gx (your
                                  *g^x) to *gH (your *g^H) would have *already* happened in
                                  Indo-European itself. We wouldn't expect a reflex like
                                  /*bhrahiman-/ because there was no laryngeal to cause *i.
                                  We aren't reconstructing *bhlagxmen- in Indo-European
                                  proper. The latter form was meant to be EARLY Late IE,
                                  again, I repeat, EARLY Late IE, a stage of Pre-IE.

                                  I hope that makes sense now.


                                  - gLeN


                                  _________________________________________________________________
                                  Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
                                • Miguel Carrasquer
                                  On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 07:41:42 +0000, Glen Gordon ... Actually, given Indo-Iranian *dhaugh- to milk , it makes more sense to
                                  Message 16 of 29 , Sep 2, 2002
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 07:41:42 +0000, "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...>
                                    wrote:

                                    >The example of *dHugxte:r becoming /duhitar-/ shows that
                                    >we started out with an Indo-European cluster *gx (not a
                                    >single phoneme *gH) that changed to *gH^x at some point
                                    >in Indo-Iranian, leaving *x to cause /i/ in Sanskrit.

                                    Actually, given Indo-Iranian *dhaugh- "to milk", it makes more sense to analyze
                                    the "daughter" word as *dhugh-h2ter-, which regularly gives Skt. duhitar, Av.
                                    duGDar, dug&dar and the reflexes with assimilated *dhukter- (Goth. dauhtar,
                                    Slav. dUs^ti, Lith. dukte:). In Greek thugáte:r, perhaps the aspiration of *gh
                                    was lost before *h2, like it is lost before *s in e.g. thriks (G. trikhos).


                                    =======================
                                    Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
                                    mcv@...
                                  • richardwordingham
                                    ... a subject which has long perplexed me. How far back does this push the separation between p-Celtic and c-Celtic? It doesn t affect the dating at all.
                                    Message 17 of 29 , Sep 2, 2002
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      --- In cybalist@y..., guto rhys <gutorhys@y...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      > Thanks for the comprenesive answer. This helps me a great deal with
                                      a subject which has long perplexed me. How far back does this push
                                      the separation between p-Celtic and c-Celtic?

                                      It doesn't affect the dating at all. Miguel is taking about the
                                      development of *pW; the P- v. Q-Celtic split is marked by the
                                      development of *kW.

                                      Hoe common is the term C-Celtic? It's seems much better than Q-
                                      Celtic, which is purely the primitive form.

                                      *pW seems an ill-supported, but neat idea. The Germanic evidence
                                      could simply indicate that the merger xW > f (or, if earlier, kW > p)
                                      started but soon halted. In Germanic it could easily spread word by
                                      word. To demonstrate it, we'd need evidence in another IE group, or
                                      Nostratic evidence for a labial instead of a guttural in these
                                      words. The non-Germanic parallels seem weak, and the Germanic
                                      inconsistencies point to a sporadic change. (But then Pre-Germanic
                                      *pW > *p may also have been sporadic.) I find it had to believe that
                                      the Nostratic evidence could be strong, even if the theory be
                                      correct. So far I think *pW is not proven.

                                      gLeN hasn't attacked this thread yet. Perhaps he now understands
                                      that 'labialised' simply means 'with rounded lips'; labialised
                                      labials are not 'labio-labial'.

                                      Richard.
                                    • tgpedersen
                                      ... p) ... by ... or ... Any relation of lucht/Luft, or is that later? Torsten
                                      Message 18 of 29 , Sep 2, 2002
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        --- In cybalist@y..., "richardwordingham" <richard.wordingham@m...>
                                        wrote:
                                        > --- In cybalist@y..., guto rhys <gutorhys@y...> wrote:
                                        > >
                                        > *pW seems an ill-supported, but neat idea. The Germanic evidence
                                        > could simply indicate that the merger xW > f (or, if earlier, kW >
                                        p)
                                        > started but soon halted. In Germanic it could easily spread word
                                        by
                                        > word. To demonstrate it, we'd need evidence in another IE group,
                                        or
                                        >
                                        > Richard.

                                        Any relation of lucht/Luft, or is that later?

                                        Torsten
                                      • Miguel Carrasquer
                                        On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 11:46:51 -0000, richardwordingham ... Nostratic evidence is hard to come by, and even if found not likely to convince many people. PIE
                                        Message 19 of 29 , Sep 2, 2002
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 11:46:51 -0000, "richardwordingham"
                                          <richard.wordingham@...> wrote:

                                          >*pW seems an ill-supported, but neat idea. The Germanic evidence
                                          >could simply indicate that the merger xW > f (or, if earlier, kW > p)
                                          >started but soon halted. In Germanic it could easily spread word by
                                          >word. To demonstrate it, we'd need evidence in another IE group, or
                                          >Nostratic evidence for a labial instead of a guttural in these
                                          >words. The non-Germanic parallels seem weak, and the Germanic
                                          >inconsistencies point to a sporadic change. (But then Pre-Germanic
                                          >*pW > *p may also have been sporadic.) I find it had to believe that
                                          >the Nostratic evidence could be strong, even if the theory be
                                          >correct. So far I think *pW is not proven.

                                          Nostratic evidence is hard to come by, and even if found not likely to convince
                                          many people. PIE *ye:kWr "liver", pre-PIE **lyé:pWn.t < **lí:punt can be
                                          compared to words for "spleen" in Cushitic (Afar ale'fu:, pl. a'lefit); Chadic
                                          (Angas lap); Uralic (Cheremis lep(a), Votyak lup, Zyryene lOp, Saami *dapde,
                                          Teryugan Ostyak LAp&tne, Hung. lép, Forest nenets Laps'a) and Tungus (Orok
                                          lipc^e): Dolgopol'skij #104), while PIE *kWétwor- "four", pre-PIE **pWét-wa:r- <
                                          **pút- can be compared to Afro-Asiatic *p.ut.-/*?a-p.t.- "four" (Chadic *fud.u,
                                          Eg. ?ftaw, Beja fad.-ig, Somali ?afar, Semitic (with metathesis) *?arb-a3-).
                                          Convinced? I didn't think so.

                                          =======================
                                          Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
                                          mcv@...
                                        • Miguel Carrasquer
                                          ... Much later. A Dutch soundlaw ft xt (gracht
                                          Message 20 of 29 , Sep 2, 2002
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 11:57:42 -0000, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

                                            >Any relation of lucht/Luft, or is that later?

                                            Much later. A Dutch soundlaw ft > xt (gracht < graft, lucht < luft, kracht <
                                            kraft, zacht < sa~ft, etc.)

                                            =======================
                                            Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
                                            mcv@...
                                          • richardwordingham
                                            ... could simply indicate that the merger xW f (or, if earlier, kW p) started but soon halted. In Germanic it could easily spread word by word. To
                                            Message 21 of 29 , Sep 2, 2002
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Richard Wordingham wrote:
                                              >> *pW seems an ill-supported, but neat idea. The Germanic evidence
                                              could simply indicate that the merger xW > f (or, if earlier, kW > p)
                                              started but soon halted. In Germanic it could easily spread word by
                                              word. To demonstrate it, we'd need evidence in another IE group, or
                                              Nostratic evidence for a labial instead of a guttural in these
                                              words. The non-Germanic parallels seem weak, and the Germanic
                                              inconsistencies point to a sporadic change. (But then Pre-Germanic
                                              *pW > *p may also have been sporadic.) I find it hard to believe
                                              that the Nostratic evidence could be strong, even if the theory be
                                              correct. So far I think *pW is not proven.

                                              --- Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
                                              > Nostratic evidence is hard to come by, and even if found not likely
                                              to convince many people. PIE *ye:kWr "liver", pre-PIE **lyé:pWn.t <
                                              **lí:punt can be compared to words for "spleen" in Cushitic (Afar
                                              ale'fu:, pl. a'lefit); Chadic (Angas lap); Uralic (Cheremis lep(a),
                                              Votyak lup, Zyryene lOp, Saami *dapde,Teryugan Ostyak LAp&tne, Hung.
                                              lép, Forest nenets Laps'a) and Tungus (Orok lipc^e): Dolgopol'skij
                                              #104)

                                              Richard:
                                              What's the Afro-Asiatic reconstruction?

                                              The semantics are good.

                                              Miguel:
                                              > while PIE *kWétwor- "four", pre-PIE **pWét-wa:r- < **pút- can be
                                              compared to Afro-Asiatic *p.ut.-/*?a-p.t.- "four" (Chadic *fud.u,
                                              Eg. ?ftaw, Beja fad.-ig, Somali ?afar, Semitic (with metathesis) *?
                                              arb-a3-).

                                              > Convinced? I didn't think so.

                                              Richard:
                                              If the Afro-Asiatic labials are the same, and the ideas went from PIE
                                              out to Nostratic, it looks convincing. (I wouldn't be convinced if
                                              the origin of the idea were some mass comparatist matching labials
                                              and just picking out Germanic words when the other IE words did not
                                              match. In statistics, the way you do the sampling matters.) I'd
                                              like to see Piotr's demolition job. Or does that offer only apply to
                                              the dormant Nostratic list?

                                              To demonstrate IE *pW, the words for 'four' don't even have to be
                                              cognate! I think a loan between the ancestral languages is
                                              plausible. Someone please correct me if I am wrong.

                                              Richard.
                                            • Miguel Carrasquer
                                              On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 17:43:41 -0000, richardwordingham ... What s an Afro-Asiatic reconstruction? :-) I have Ehret, and frankly, it s rubbish. Orel &
                                              Message 22 of 29 , Sep 2, 2002
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 17:43:41 -0000, "richardwordingham"
                                                <richard.wordingham@...> wrote:

                                                >--- Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
                                                >> Nostratic evidence is hard to come by, and even if found not likely
                                                >to convince many people. PIE *ye:kWr "liver", pre-PIE **lyé:pWn.t <
                                                >**lí:punt can be compared to words for "spleen" in Cushitic (Afar
                                                >ale'fu:, pl. a'lefit); Chadic (Angas lap); Uralic (Cheremis lep(a),
                                                >Votyak lup, Zyryene lOp, Saami *dapde,Teryugan Ostyak LAp&tne, Hung.
                                                >lép, Forest nenets Laps'a) and Tungus (Orok lipc^e): Dolgopol'skij
                                                >#104)
                                                >
                                                >Richard:
                                                >What's the Afro-Asiatic reconstruction?

                                                What's an Afro-Asiatic reconstruction? :-)

                                                I have Ehret, and frankly, it's rubbish. Orel & Stolbova, from what I gather,
                                                are not much better.

                                                >The semantics are good.
                                                >
                                                >Miguel:
                                                >> while PIE *kWétwor- "four", pre-PIE **pWét-wa:r- < **pút- can be
                                                >compared to Afro-Asiatic *p.ut.-/*?a-p.t.- "four" (Chadic *fud.u,
                                                >Eg. ?ftaw,

                                                Correction *?fdaw (where <d> was emphatic /t./).

                                                >Beja fad.-ig, Somali ?afar, Semitic (with metathesis) *?arb-a3-).
                                                >
                                                >> Convinced? I didn't think so.
                                                >
                                                >Richard:
                                                >If the Afro-Asiatic labials are the same, and the ideas went from PIE
                                                >out to Nostratic, it looks convincing. (I wouldn't be convinced if
                                                >the origin of the idea were some mass comparatist matching labials
                                                >and just picking out Germanic words when the other IE words did not
                                                >match. In statistics, the way you do the sampling matters.) I'd
                                                >like to see Piotr's demolition job. Or does that offer only apply to
                                                >the dormant Nostratic list?
                                                >
                                                >To demonstrate IE *pW, the words for 'four' don't even have to be
                                                >cognate! I think a loan between the ancestral languages is
                                                >plausible. Someone please correct me if I am wrong.

                                                True, borrowings will also do. The most likely source of borrowing, Semitic, is
                                                problematic in this case, however (?arba3u, with metathesis *?ap.t.- > *?at.p.-
                                                > *?adb- > ?arb-, and a what's the `ayn doing there?), while Egyptian (not
                                                likely, but possible) has *?fdw < *?ap.t-. The best fit is Chadic, but somehow
                                                a PIE-Chadic borrowing seems unlikely. I find it encouraging that there's also
                                                a plausible link between AA and IE "3": "PN" *tiláti > PAA *c^ala:c^ > Sem.
                                                *t_ala:t_ // PPIE *t^lát^ > *trét^- > PIE *trey- (ordinal tr.t-yós).



                                                =======================
                                                Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
                                                mcv@...
                                              • Glen Gordon
                                                ... Well, I dunno. Do people tend to milk their daughters where you come from? - gLeN _________________________________________________________________ Chat
                                                Message 23 of 29 , Sep 2, 2002
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  Miguel:
                                                  >Actually, given Indo-Iranian *dhaugh- "to milk", it makes more sense to
                                                  >analyze the "daughter" word as *dhugh-h2ter-, [...]

                                                  Well, I dunno. Do people tend to milk their daughters where you come from?


                                                  - gLeN


                                                  _________________________________________________________________
                                                  Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
                                                • Miguel Carrasquer
                                                  On Tue, 03 Sep 2002 02:28:36 +0000, Glen Gordon ... Daughters tend to milk their mothers. Cf. Grk. koura, We. hogen, Slav. de^va,
                                                  Message 24 of 29 , Sep 3, 2002
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    On Tue, 03 Sep 2002 02:28:36 +0000, "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...>
                                                    wrote:

                                                    >Miguel:
                                                    >>Actually, given Indo-Iranian *dhaugh- "to milk", it makes more sense to
                                                    >>analyze the "daughter" word as *dhugh-h2ter-, [...]
                                                    >
                                                    >Well, I dunno. Do people tend to milk their daughters where you come from?

                                                    Daughters tend to milk their mothers. Cf. Grk. koura, We. hogen, Slav. de^va,
                                                    Lat. fi:lia, Latv de:ls, all from roots meaning "suck, nourish, milk".

                                                    =======================
                                                    Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
                                                    mcv@...
                                                  • richardwordingham
                                                    ... **pút- can be ... borrowing, Semitic, is ... Egyptian (not ... but somehow ... there s also ... *c^ala:c^ Sem. ... tr.t-yós). I was thinking in terms
                                                    Message 25 of 29 , Sep 3, 2002
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      --- In cybalist@y..., Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@w...> wrote:
                                                      > On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 17:43:41 -0000, "richardwordingham"
                                                      > <richard.wordingham@m...> wrote:
                                                      >
                                                      > >--- Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
                                                      > >Miguel:
                                                      > >> while PIE *kWétwor- "four", pre-PIE **pWét-wa:r- <
                                                      **pút- can be
                                                      > >compared to Afro-Asiatic *p.ut.-/*?a-p.t.- "four" (Chadic *fud.u,
                                                      > >Eg. ?ftaw,
                                                      >
                                                      > Correction *?fdaw (where <d> was emphatic /t./).
                                                      >
                                                      > >Beja fad.-ig, Somali ?afar, Semitic (with metathesis) *?arb-a3-).
                                                      > >
                                                      > >To demonstrate IE *pW, the words for 'four' don't even have to be
                                                      > >cognate! I think a loan between the ancestral languages is
                                                      > >plausible. Someone please correct me if I am wrong.
                                                      >
                                                      > True, borrowings will also do. The most likely source of
                                                      borrowing, Semitic, is
                                                      > problematic in this case, however (?arba3u, with metathesis *?ap.t.-
                                                      > *?at.p.-
                                                      > > *?adb- > ?arb-, and a what's the `ayn doing there?), while
                                                      Egyptian (not
                                                      > likely, but possible) has *?fdw < *?ap.t-. The best fit is Chadic,
                                                      but somehow
                                                      > a PIE-Chadic borrowing seems unlikely. I find it encouraging that
                                                      there's also
                                                      > a plausible link between AA and IE "3": "PN" *tiláti > PAA
                                                      *c^ala:c^ > Sem.
                                                      > *t_ala:t_ // PPIE *t^lát^ > *trét^- > PIE *trey- (ordinal
                                                      tr.t-yós).

                                                      I was thinking in terms of the more recent date of 8000-6000 BC for
                                                      the Afro-Asiatic split, as discussed in
                                                      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/2612 . This would
                                                      allow a loan between proto-AA and an ancestor of PIE. (I accept
                                                      Renfrew's theory for IE origins.)

                                                      I'm beginning to have some qualms about liver ~ spleen. I was
                                                      thinking of liver ~ pancreas. Is the use of a word for liver to
                                                      refer to the spleen attested? I have a vague suspicion that
                                                      Thai 'tap lek', literally 'iron liver', might mean 'spleen', but I
                                                      can't find it in my dictionaries. Does anyone on the list know Thai
                                                      well enough to answer?

                                                      Richard.
                                                    • alexmoeller@t-online.de
                                                      ... From: Glen Gordon To: Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 4:28 AM Subject: Re: [tied] Seeking
                                                      Message 26 of 29 , Sep 3, 2002
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                        ----- Original Message -----
                                                        From: "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...>
                                                        To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
                                                        Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 4:28 AM
                                                        Subject: Re: [tied] Seeking Information Please


                                                        >
                                                        > Miguel:
                                                        > >Actually, given Indo-Iranian *dhaugh- "to milk", it makes
                                                        more sense to
                                                        > >analyze the "daughter" word as *dhugh-h2ter-, [...]
                                                        >
                                                        > Well, I dunno. Do people tend to milk their daughters where
                                                        you come from?
                                                        >
                                                        >
                                                        > - gLeN

                                                        [Moeller]Glen, Glen ... that rememebr me of the barbar and
                                                        Barbarella:-)))
                                                      • richardwordingham
                                                        ... related cultures, other than Celtic and Roman, whose societal ... classes/castes. There s always the Hindu caste system, which I believe started the whole
                                                        Message 27 of 29 , Sep 6, 2002
                                                        • 0 Attachment
                                                          --- In cybalist@y..., "Greaghoir MacIain" <greaghoir@f...> wrote:
                                                          > Does any one happen to know of any other Indo-European linguisticly
                                                          related cultures, other than Celtic and Roman, whose societal
                                                          castes/classes corespond to:
                                                          >
                                                          > 1) religious functionaries
                                                          > 2) warriors
                                                          > 3) landowner/merchent
                                                          >
                                                          > If so, what are the cultures, and what are the names of the
                                                          classes/castes.

                                                          There's always the Hindu caste system, which I believe started the
                                                          whole idea of this analysis:

                                                          1) brahmins - priests
                                                          2) kshatriyas - warriors
                                                          3) sudras - cultivators.

                                                          Check on number 3 - I may have got it wrong. There is a fourth
                                                          caste, but the argument goes that it doesn't matter. (I hope that's
                                                          not along the lines of, 'No one who really mattered was poor.')

                                                          Richard.
                                                        • guto rhys
                                                          Good, beer - one of my favourite subjects. to brew in Welsh is bragu - I don t know its etymology. Cwrw is beer (
                                                          Message 28 of 29 , Sep 7, 2002
                                                          • 0 Attachment
                                                            Good, beer - one of my favourite subjects.

                                                            'to brew' in Welsh is 'bragu' - I don't know its
                                                            etymology. 'Cwrw' is beer (<'cwrwf' < 'cwrf' <
                                                            Celt.'korma').

                                                            You'll also find the word used for a rather nice
                                                            Breton beer, brewed in Montroulez (Morlaix) called
                                                            'Koreff' (a revived medieval form).

                                                            I won't postulate any connection, certainly without
                                                            looking in my reference books - I'll leave that to the
                                                            experts. But I have long wondered whether there could
                                                            just possibly be a link. Guto

                                                            __________________________________________________
                                                            Do You Yahoo!?
                                                            Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
                                                            http://finance.yahoo.com
                                                          • Richard Wordingham
                                                            ... Looking for this entry in Dolgopolsky s Nostratic Dictionary by searching for the word liver , I found quite a few case where spleen occurred as the
                                                            Message 29 of 29 , Jul 6, 2013
                                                            • 0 Attachment
                                                              --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "richardwordingham" <richard.wordingham@...> wrote:

                                                              > I'm beginning to have some qualms about liver ~ spleen. I was
                                                              > thinking of liver ~ pancreas. Is the use of a word for liver to
                                                              > refer to the spleen attested? I have a vague suspicion that
                                                              > Thai 'tap lek', literally 'iron liver', might mean 'spleen', but I
                                                              > can't find it in my dictionaries. Does anyone on the list know Thai
                                                              > well enough to answer?

                                                              I never got a reply that justified words for 'spleen' and 'liver' being cognate as suggested by Miguel (Carrasquer Vidal) in http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/14952 :

                                                              > Nostratic evidence is hard to come by, and even if found not likely > to convince many people. PIE *ye:kWr "liver", pre-PIE **lyé:pWn.t <
                                                              > **lí:punt can be compared to words for "spleen" in Cushitic (Afar
                                                              > ale'fu:, pl. a'lefit); Chadic (Angas lap); Uralic (Cheremis lep(a),
                                                              > Votyak lup, Zyryene lOp, Saami *dapde, Teryugan Ostyak LAp&tne,
                                                              > Hung. lép, Forest nenets Laps'a) and Tungus (Orok lipc^e):
                                                              > Dolgopol'skij #104), while PIE *kWétwor- "four", pre-PIE
                                                              > **pWét-wa:r- < **pút- can be compared to Afro-Asiatic
                                                              > *p.ut.-/*?a-p.t.- "four" (Chadic *fud.u, Eg. ?ftaw, Beja fad.-ig,
                                                              > Somali ?afar, Semitic (with metathesis) *?arb-a3-).

                                                              Looking for this entry in Dolgopolsky's 'Nostratic Dictionary' by searching for the word 'liver', I found quite a few case where 'spleen' occurred as the meaning of an alleged cognate of a word meaning 'liver'.

                                                              Moreover, I am now in possession of a copy of the Thai Royal Institute Dictionary. So I looked up Thai 'tap lek'. The meaning is given as _mA:m khO:ng mU:_ - 'spleen of pig'! Bingo! The semantics match. It's a been long time, but I think this confirmation is worth posting.

                                                              Richard.
                                                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.