Re: [tied] A LEGITIMATE QUESTION ABOUT 'WATER' ISOGLOSS TO I.E. LINGUISTS
- At 12:26:29 AM on Thursday, September 6, 2012, The Egyptian
> I have a legitimate question about how and why I.E.[...]
> linguists determine a term to be considered strictly
> An example would be the following:
> Linguists believe PIE had two root words for water:
> *ap-and *wed-.
> Both terms (*ap-and *wed-.) are offered as being part ofChallenged by whom?
> the basic Indo-European vocabulary. Often, these terms are
> offered as the core of their "show case" Indo-European
> examples. The current post you are discussing exemplifying
> this clearly and decisivly.
> This assertion, often taken for granted, is now being
> challenged by the presence of similar terms for water in
> Arabic, a non-Indo-European language
> (these terms are `dr, `dd, and `bb which correspond to PIEIn what sense do they correspond?
> *ap-and *wed-.
> This points to a problem which needs to be addressed whenOf course it should matter. Presence in just one branch of
> dealing with isoglosses which cut across family languages.
> To my knowledge these terms are only found in Arabic and
> are non-existent in other sister languages. I was often
> asked whether or not there are any other examples in
> Semitic languages? My answer is: should it it matter,
> especially in the light of the extensive and comprehensive
> definitions found in Old Arabic and Classical Arabic?
a family is evidence that something is a loan into that
branch. It's not conclusive evidence, of course, but it's
certainly enough to prevent projection of the word to the
family as a whole without very good reason.
> Actually these definitions are so overwhelmingly detailedWhat on earth does the amount of detail in the definitions
> as to pose enough of a challenge (in this particular
> case), to all combined Indo European examples offered so
have to do with it?
> It is my belief that there is something amiss here thatThere doesn't seem to be anything to discuss.
> has never been addressed.
> I've never heard any I.E. Linguists officially discussing
> this anomaly.
- Ishinan had written:
> Linguists believe PIE had two root words for water: *ap- and *wed-:At times I ask such questions to some experts (now also via Facebook), but their replies usually come late.
> "water (n.1) O.E. wæter, from P.Gmc. *watar (cf. O.S. watar,
> O.Fris. wetir, Du. water, O.H.G. wazzar, Ger. Wasser, O.N. vatn,
> Goth. wato "water"), from PIE *wodor/*wedor/*uder-, from root *wed-
> (cf. Hittite watar, Skt. udrah, Gk. hydor, O.C.S., Rus. voda,
> Lith. vanduo, O.Prus. wundan, Gael. uisge "water;" L. unda "wave")."
> Both terms (*ap- and *wed-) are offered as being part of the basic
> Indo-European vocabulary.... This assertion, often taken for
> granted, is now being challenged by the presence of similar terms
> for water in Arabic, a non-Indo-European language (these terms are
> `dr, `dd, and `bb which correspond to PIE *ap- and *wed-... To my
> knowledge these terms are only found in Arabic and are non-existent
> in other sister languages. I was often asked whether or not there
> are any other examples in Semitic languages?
According to Prof. Alexander Militarev, a well-known Semitist, Arabic `dr at least has "rather reliable Afrasian cognates" -- I reproduce here my original query and his reply.
> > Dear Prof. Militarev,Prof. Militarev's reply:
> > I wonder whether you can provide any clues about the Semitic
> > etymology (admitted there is one) of the Classical Arabic word
> > ʕdr mentioned in this link [to a site managed by Ishinan --
> > FB]:
> > http://www.theegyptianchronicles.com/LINKS/3DR.html
> > Does this word have any Semitic cognates?
> Dear Francesco,See the full etymology (in some cases slightly different from Militarev's one) at
> Arab. ʕdr `abound in water', ʕadar- `heavy rain, downpour' has no
> explanation for the first radical other than a "root-extention" of
> West Semitic (in my classification) verb *drr (Hebrew 'drip',
> Arabic 'flow abundantly'). The Sem. root has rather reliable
> Afrasian cognates: Egyptian dr (alternatively, d may render ṭ and
> r - l) 'prevent water from flowing down' (medical text); West
> Chadic: Hausa ḍū́rà, Tangale dɛrị, Polchi ḍùrə̀w 'pour', etc.,
> Central Chadic: Gude ḍaarə 'flow', etc.; East Chadic: Bidiya
> ḍr-ḍòr 'inundate'; East Cushitic: Saho-Afar darur 'rain-cloud'.
How can the existence of a Proto-Afrasian root *dVr- 'flow' (or else its Proto-West Semitic derivative (through "root-extension"), *ddr- 'flow abundantly' have generated PIE *wedor- 'water'?
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Francesco Brighenti" wrote:
> How can the existence of a Proto-Afrasian root *dVr- 'flow' (or else its Proto-West Semitic derivative (through "root-extension"), *ddr- 'flow abundantly' have generated PIE *wedor- 'water'?Well, it's tempting to posit another root extensions *wdr and back-formation from PIE *wedor- to PIE *wed, but I wouldn't give both of these processes happening much credence. This hypothetical extension is in another of the forms given by Militarev's paper 'Root Extension And Root Formation In Semitic And Afrasian', available at http://starling.rinet.ru/Texts/semroot.pdf .