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

Re: Re: [tied] Question on "question"

Expand Messages
  • whitedawn
    Could you give us a more precise explanation, please...
    Message 1 of 103 , Feb 28 3:19 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Could you give us a more precise explanation, please...
       

      On 2006-02-26 03:47, C. Darwin Goranson wrote:
       
      >
       Is there a connection between the German "fragen" (meaning "to ask")
      >
       and the root verb in Greek for the 1st person present "phráze" ("to
      >  tell", I think)? [actually < pHrazo:>
       -- Piotr]
       
      No, the Germanic word goes back to PIE *prek^-, as in Lat. precor 
      (related to OFrench preier -->  Eng. pray).
       
      Piotr
       
       
       
      Yahoo! Groups Links
       
      < *>  To visit your group on the web, go to:
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/
       
      < *>  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          cybalist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
       
      < *>  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
          http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
       
       
       
       
       

    • alexandru_mg3
      ... makes you ... family ... same ... index. ... 0. malak- soft seems to indicate *h2 _if_ it s the same root. - well said: IF = but seems that you
      Message 103 of 103 , Mar 31, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
        wrote:
        >
        > On 2006-03-31 17:59, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
        >
        > > It was *melh1- with h1
        >
        > I wouldn't say that you can't be right, but I just wonder what
        makes you
        > so certain. I can't see much evidence either way. The Gk. word
        family
        > built around malak- 'soft' seems to indicate *h2 _if_ it's the
        same
        > root. I suppose that's why most (though not all) IEists prefer the
        > reconstruction *melh2-. Some just refrain from specifying the
        index.
        >
        > Piotr
        >

        0. "malak- 'soft' seems to indicate *h2 _if_ it's the same
        root."
        -> well said: 'IF' => but seems that you doubt (as I doubt too)
        about 'that semantic link'.


        1. my rejection of *h2 in *melh- is based on Romanian mãlai that
        means 'flour, or a <specific composition> made by flour'

        For the meaning please see: http://dexonline.ro/search.php?
        cuv=malai&source=

        Romanian mãlái < PAlb/Dacian? *mallája: < PAlb./Dacian?
        *malwája: /syll.-by-syll.: *ma-lwá-ja:/ < PIE *mlh-wó-yo/eh2 < PIE
        *melh- 'flour'


        So the link: Romanian mãlai 'flour' to the PIE *melh- 'flour'
        appears to be obvious (at least for me).

        Note: PAlb *lw > PAlb *ll (> later Rom l) explains also the lack of
        rothacism in Romanian mãlai (see a similar case in Romanian mal >
        Dacian Mal-wa)


        Why we don't have h2 in melh- ?
        -----------------------------------------------

        1. First we need to consider for mãlai that we have in the root the
        nil-grade *mlh- and not the full-grade *melh- > because in mãlái
        the stress pattern is not on the root: it was *mlh-wó-yo/eh2 (and
        not *melH-wó-yo/eh2)

        2. Next 'the supposed' *melh2- (see Beekes etc..) would give in
        this particular case as nil-grade *mlh2-wó-yo/eh2

        But *lh2 , *rh2 gave in PAlb *ul, *ur :
        see as examples:

        1. *g^rh2-no/eh2 > PAlb *gruna: (see Alb grurë)

        2. *gWerh2- 'mountain'> PIE *gWrh2-i- > PAlb *gur-i- 'stone'
        (see Alb. gur <-> Rom grui)

        3. *gwrih2- 'neck' > PIE *gwrh2-mo-dy-o > PAlb/Dacian *grumadya
        PAlb/Dacian *grumadza (see Rom. grumadz 'both parts on the back of
        the neck' <-> Alb gurmaz 'id'

        (I suspect that *grumadza was reshaped from a dual-form similar with
        PAlb. *budya: < Rom budza <-> Alb. buza)

        I know that you 'don't trust' this PAlb rule: PIE *rh2, *lh2 > PAlb
        *ul, *ur and as results the above derivations too, but 'they are too
        many' and finally they have one big advantage : they 'arrived to be
        exaplained on a regular basis'.

        NOTE also that (if the rule above is true, and I think so): we have
        *h2 in *gWerh2- 'mountain' and *h2 in *gwrih2- 'neck'


        So applying PIE *lh2 > PAlb/Dacian? *ul to a supposed root *melh2- >
        *mlh2- we would obtain:

        PIE *mlh2-wó-yo/eh2 > PAlb *mulwája: > Romanian *muláj that is not
        the case: the Romanian form is mãlái


        In conclusion: we cannot have *h2 in *melh-



        3. Next a *h1 in 'a possible' *mlh1-wó-yo/eh2 form give us the
        correct form: PAlb/Dacian? malwája: > Romanian mãlái

        see for PIE *rh1, *lh1 > PAlb *ar, *al:

        *bHrh1g'-o/eh2 > PAlb bárdza:
        *(s)krh1-p-o/eh2 > PAlb kárpa:

        (Please remember that you didn't answer to my question: 'why not o-
        grades in place of the above forms?' I really need to know :))


        4. But *h3 cannot be excluded too based only on Romanian 'mãlái':

        Because *mlh3-wó-yo/eh2 gave us the correct form too : PAlb/Dacian?
        malwája > Romanian mãlái

        For *rh3, *lh3 > PAlb *ar, *al:

        *prh3-wo/eh2 > PAlb pára: (Alb. parë)


        5. Finally, viewing that I need to find out 'somehow' if it was h1
        or h3, I have tried to find-out 'other' PIE <<flour, to grind>>
        roots to see if there was h1 or h3 in that roots too:
        And I found:
        *h2elh1- `grind' =>
        Greek aleo:
        see also:
        PIE *h2leh1-ur. > Arm. alwer 'flour' (Beekes)

        Of course 'maybe there is no direct link' between *h2elh1- 'flour,
        to grind' and *melh1- 'flour, to grind' however (don't ask me
        why), 'I prefer to see a link' => so the 'final' reconstruction is
        *melh1-

        Marius


        P>S> Do you have some other arguments "on why not melh3-"? I saw
        that nobody proposed *melh3- however I'm not aware of the reason
        behind (but my argument no. 5 that is not a 'direct' one)
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.