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

Sin once more

Expand Messages
  • tgpedersen
    Pokorny: pe:(i)-, pi:- weh tun, beschädigen, schmähen ; pe:-mn. Leid, Krankheit . Ai. pí:yati schmäht, höhnt , pi:yú-, píya:ru- höhnend,
    Message 1 of 90 , Jul 5, 2008
      Pokorny: '
      pe:(i)-, pi:- "weh tun, beschädigen, schmähen";
      pe:-mn. "Leid, Krankheit".
      Ai. pí:yati "schmäht, höhnt",
      pi:yú-, píya:ru- "höhnend, schmähend";
      gr. pe:~ma "Verderben, Leid",
      apé:mo:n "unbeschädigt; unschädlich",
      pe:-maíno: "stifte Unheil, richte zugrunde" (idg. *pe:-mn.),
      pé:sasthai: mémpsasthai Hes.,
      e:-panía "Mangel, Entbehrung";
      pé:ros, dor. pa:rós "verstümmelt, blind",
      á-pe:ros "unverstümmelt";
      lat. paene (pe:ne) "beinahe, fast; ganz und gar"
      (ursprüngl. Neutrum eines Adj. *pe:-ni-s "beschädigt, mangelhaft"),
      paenitet "es reut, tut leid",
      pe:nu:ria "Mangel"; von einem Partiz. *p&-tó-s "geschädigt" stammt
      patior, -i:, passus sum "dulde, erdulde, leide";
      idg. pe:i- in got. faian "tadeln",
      pi:- in got. fijan, aisl. fja:, ags. fe:on, ahd. fi:e:n "hassen",
      Partiz. Präs. in got. fijands, ahd. fi:a:nt usw. "Feind";
      mit gebrochener Reduplikation
      ai. pa:pá- "schlimm, böse";
      pa:pmán- m. "Unheil, Schaden, Leiden" erst nach dem vielleicht
      lallwortartigen pa:pá- für *pa:man- eingetreten;
      ai. pa:mán- bedeutet "eine Hautkrankheit, Krätze",
      pa:maná-, pa:mará- "krätzig', wie
      av. pa:man- "Krätze, Fläche, Trockenheit", wozu vermutlich
      lat. paemino:sus, pe:mino:sus "brüchig, rissig";
      ai. pa:pá- = arm. hivand- "krank" (Ernst Lewy).
      WP. II 8 f., WH. II 234 f., 264, 283.'

      How about *pe:-ik- "something that hurts", later 'de-sabellized' (cf.
      Osc scriftas, Umbrian screhto, but Latin script-), pe:ik- > pekk-,
      thus Latin pecca: (old n.pl.)?

      It would correspond to Norw. (un-Grimm) peik "böser Streich"

      No more need to put a foot in it (although *pe:(i) etc might
      ultimately be from *ped- "lower(?)" v.).

    • george knysh
      ... That s not what I said. Dio Cassius draws the general conclusion that Cesar started without sufficient grounds, and one of the things that would give him
      Message 90 of 90 , Oct 1, 2008
        --- On Wed, 10/1/08, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

        > --- On Tue, 9/30/08, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@ ...> wrote:
        > when he claims has has been attacked by "omnes
        > > Galliae civitates", then that is from his point of view what had
        > > happened.
        > >
        > > GK: We don't know what Ariovistus said. Caesar wrote DBG.
        > What C. wrote A. said was damning to Caesar, so much that Dio
        > Cassius could use it against him.
        > GK: Cassius Dio does not confirm your fantasy of a common
        > assault of Aedui and Sequani against Ariovistus before Caesar's
        > involvement.
        That's not what I said. Dio Cassius draws the general conclusion that
        Cesar started without sufficient grounds, and one of the things that
        would give him that impression is Caesar's account of the negotiation.

        > (GK)And DBG 6:12 confirms the traditional account.

        DBG 6:12 doesn't mention any conflict between the Sequani and
        Ariovistus at all.

        ****GK: Exactly. Because there wasn't any such conflict along the lines of your "theory". What DBG 6.12 confirms is that Magetobriga and its aftermaths occurred before Caesar's arrival in Gaul in early 58 BCE. Every investigator prior to you who put together 1.31 and 6.12 "got it". You don't seem to "get it". That's tough, but that's your problem,and no excuse for flogging dead horses.****
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.