Re: [tied] Religious terms , here saint
- 02-07-03 20:22, alex wrote:
> The next one is I did not took into consideration in Avestan words which[Sigh.] Alex, *kWe- yields Av. c^a-. Again, it's practically impossible
> derives from kWe as "*kWek" > "kas"; "*kWe" > "sa" ; "*kWel" > "selem".
to guess what you might mean. Avestan has no "selem" (it has no /l/ to
> I just took the words which have been rendered as "*k^we-" there where IIt's more a question of your misreading thins, not of Pokorny's giving
> found them. If these roots are not given corectly, I agree, I should
> have had to verify them in a second source before posting it, thing
> which I didn't and you can accuse me for it.
the wrong forms. By the way, there are also instances of *-k^w- > Av.
-sp- word-medially, as in *h1ek^wo- > aspa- 'horse'.
> The next one is that I did not contradicted you, I just showed some dataIt's no shame to say, "All right, I stand corrected" and accept
> which you mean they are wrong.If you see it as contradiction, the let it
> be your way to interprete this.
criticism gracefully. It's silly to say "OK, then have it your way, and
let me have it my way." What you said about the reflexes of *k^w in
Avestan was wrong. FULL STOP. It's a demonstrable (and already
demonstrated) fact, not a matter Miguel's interpretation.
>I don't see Miguel's comment as an ad hominem attack. He first addressed
> The next one is that with this kind of answers one goes away from the
> discussion but it let the discussion become again a personaly polemic
> which I don't intend to take part of it.
> The next one is that I don't care if the rom. "sfânt" is a loan from
> Slavic or not. I care about the semantic shift from a religious therm
> which meant just _holy_ in something like "sunset" which is unexplanable
> via Slavic "holy".
> The last one is that I have no pleasure to answer in the same manner to
> all the insinuations you make as usual falling in your old habbit of
> attacking the person. If I will intend to do it, it won't be directed to
> you but - as in our part of Romance usualy is, of course because of the
> Slavic influence, isn't it? - my words will be automaticaly directed to
> the one who gives birth to such people and usualy these women are not
> guilty for the acts of their offsprings. I hope I won't reach that
the topic, giving you good, reliable information. Then he pointed out
all the errors you had committed -- and there was quite a few of them,
all revealing your incompetence in handling linguistic evidence.
Finally, he got testy -- perhaps unnecessarily testy, but I wouldn't say
you'd given him no cause for annoyance. Understanding the extent of
one's own ignorance is the first step towards learning anything. If you
make a bold assertion based on a cursory and amateurishly inept survey
of the index to Pokorny's dictionary, you're almost sure to be wrong and
to provoke those who are better informed.
I hope your final remarks can be mercifully construed as a miscarried
attempt at being witty. The less said about it, the better.
- Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
> No, there's no Slavic influence there; filldeputa is as Romance as itunused in Eastern Romance. You can translate it but it is not used that
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
way. There is "pui de cãTea", "pui de lele" and eventualy "fecior de
curvã, fecior de cãTea" & a lot more. The usualy way is to cover with
injuries the poor mother, showing what this one will intend to do with
the mother of the mentioned son, just for making the son feel
inconfortable. But this will be more under the topic of ethnology I
guess and maybe just a small part of it considered as
- Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:
> Then heI JUST WROTE THEM AS I FOUND THEM !!
> pointed out all the errors you had committed -- and there was quite a
> few of them, all revealing your incompetence in handling linguistic
Do you want me to post to you the excel tabelle with all these
comparative reflexes of the roots?I will post them imediately to you ,
just tell me. And if they they are wrong, it was said it is wrong, I
accepted it and have nothing against it.
- --- In email@example.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@w...> wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 18:29:02 +0200, alex <alxmoeller@f...> wrote:have as
> >In Avestan there are just two words where initialy the k^w > sp:
> >k^won > spa
> >k^wen > spenta
> Pokorny gives:
> 1. spa:(y)- aufschwellen (p. 593)
> 2. spa:- Hund (632)
> 3. spae:ta- weiss (629)
> spiti-doiTra- helläugig (629)
> 4. sp&nta- heilig (630)
> spa(:)nah- heiligkeit (630)
> >if my data are not wrong then we have:
> >k^wes > susi
> Av. sus^i is from *k^us-
> >k^wei-1 > kay
> From *kWei(t)-(1), of course.
> >k^wei-3 > savah
> No such word in Pokorny.
> >further based on the data I have, one can see that in Baltic we
> >follow:correctly, you
> >k^wei-1 > svins
> svi:ns is Latvian!
> >k^wei-2 > s^vyks^teti
> >k^wei-3 > sviesti
> >k^wes > s^us^inti
> From *k^us-
> >k^wet > kutinetis
> From *kut-
> In other words, you can barely transcribe a single entry
> invent entries that are not there [not in the printed version atleast],
> you don't know that not all words starting with *k^w- are listedin Pokorny
> under lemmata starting with *k^w- (you must also check *k^eu-),and that
> not all words listed in Pokorny under lemmata starting with *k^w-begin
> with *k^w- (some of them start with *k^u-), you don't know that s^all that
> s in
> Latvian, you can't distinguish *k^ from *k from *kW, and on top of
> you have the nerve to contradict me... Tsk, tsk.The basic explanations of what is going on is ablaut (apophony) and
the vocalisation of semivowels! It is not for nothing that Latin
did not distinguish <i> and <j> or <u> and <v>. By ablaut -eu- in a
root can potentially appear as -eu-, -w-, -u-, -ou- or possibly even
e:u or o:u, and similarly -we- can potentially appear as -we-, -w-, -
u-, -wo- or possibly even -we:- or -wo:-. Jens and Miguel have had
long conversations on Cybalist about the rules that determine which
ablaut variant appears.