[gothic-l] Re: compounds
??? Shouldn't it rather be PIE *ghed- with a secondary nasal infix?
get vs. forget IE ghend- > Germ. *getan 'take, get, get hold of' > Germ. *fergetan
But whatever the case may be - my examples were chosen intentionally to show that despite obvious etymology of the morphemes, they sometimes - not always - are by no means separable any more in later times
- be it in MEANING: every German would know 'verlieren', but none *'lieren'; or know 'vergessen', but no *'gessen'.
- be it in FORM: Unless he had looked it up, or learned about it otherwise, it's doubtful whether anyone would know about the origin of 'sport' which is a contracted 'dis-port', or of 'fressen' which is a contracted 'ver-essen' (note the distortion in writing here; unfortunately no English counterparts).
I do not say that your undertaking/enterprise is 'wrong', Matt; but I have some reservations about its scientific value.
It made me smile a bit that Salo once cited POKORNY's I.E.W. which dates back to the 50ies (i.e.2 human generations). Not only because many equations are somewhat outdated; but rather because the linguists have meanwhile realized exactly what WATKINS has stated (and you have quoted), viz. that often the meanings
diverge shaprly [?] from one another and the scholar finds himselfThat's also why - more and more often - in etymological dictionaries, you'll find comments like 'of unknown origin', or 'with obscure etymology'. From my point of view, this is far more honest than any frantic attempts of reducing to a common denominator.
reduced in practice to inferring only what seems to him a reasonable, or
even merely possible, semantic common denominator. The result is that
reconstructed words and particularly roots are often assigned hazy,
vague, or unspecific meanings.
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/gothic-l
www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications