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

Verdict on Mann

Expand Messages
  • Andrew Jarrette
    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
    Message 1 of 44 , Nov 30, 2008
      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.)

    • Arnaud Fournet
      ... From: stlatos ... Therefore, Kamviri z.úk salt must be borrowed from Skt: ... Since k p by u in some Dardic, as Khow *pr,zdn,kús
      Message 44 of 44 , Dec 17, 2008
        ----- 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 cybalist@yahoogroups.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" ?

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