Verdict on Mann
- I know that Stuart Mann's "An Indo-European Comparative Dictionary" is
regarded as disreputable, unreliable, and often erroneous. I want to
know, to what degree -- extremely? slightly? moderately? I especially
would like to know regarding his distribution of PIE *k^ vs. *k -
although I have heard it said many times that in reconstructions of
PIE, *k^ greatly outnumbers *k, in Mann's dictionary *k^ appears
initially 414 times (275 times before vowels) whereas *k appears
initially 1028 times (687 times before vowels) -- not to mention *g^
initially 167 times (134 times before vowels) vs. *g initially 396
times (187 times before vowels) and *g^h initially 131 times (103
times before vowels) vs. *gh initially 331 times (204 times before
vowels). The point is, in his reconstructions the velars are
considerably more frequent than the velars, as one might expect in a
natural distribution in a language. But is Mann's data to be rejected
wholesale? Or can I use it at all reliably? (If anyone can tell me
the occurrences of velars vs. palatals in LIV for comparison, I would
greatly appreciate it.)
----- Original Message -----
From: "stlatos" <stlatos@...>
> Skt u:s.ará- > *u:s.rà > s.urà 'saltpeter'
Therefore, Kamviri z.úk 'salt' must be borrowed from Skt:
So I'd reply to:
--- In email@example.com, "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...> wrote:
> Zupanija (Z = "zh" or "z^") is derived from Zupan 'the
> supervisor of a Zupa (a salt mine, sometimes also a salt or
> silver depot)' -- a very important function in early Slavic
> states, as salt production was an extremely lucrative
> business, usually monopolised by the ruler. Zupan eventually
> came to mean something like 'alderman' or 'sheriff' in
> Anglo-Saxon England -- a royal official responsible for an
> administrative unit. As characteristically Iranian agent
> nouns in -pa:na- (cf. Indic -pa:- < IE *pax-) mean
> 'guardian, supervisor, protector', an Iranian connection
> used to be proposed for Zupan as well, but the idea has been
> abandoned by most scholars: the morphological division is
> after all Zup-an rather than Zu-pan. However, Zupa itself is
> a mysterious word and I'd like to see a convincing etymology
> of it myself. Slavic *Z comes from earlier *g(W) palatalised
> before a front vowel (that is, Zupa < something like
> *geup-a:), which seems to rule out any connection with the
> Tamil word.
Since k>p by u in some Dardic, as Khow *pr,zdn,kús > *purdumpu^ >
purdúm 'leopard', Kamviri z.úk 'salt' was likely related to an
Indo-Iranian language with z.>z^ in which *z.u:kWa > *z^upa 'salt'
Therefore, as a borrowing into Slavic no earlier gW > gY is needed.
And what about Kartvelian zGva "sea"
as a direct etymon to *s.ura, *zu-pa ans *z.uk "salt" ?