Re: Etymology of Houbit and haben
- From: "mb" <azythos2@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 15 Mar 2007 15:47:23 -0700
"Franz Gnaedinger" <f...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
....
Paul Harvey and Philip Baldi: "The familiar Latin noun
_populus_ (...) represents an object lesson in the difficulties
of etymology." The authors discuss previous explanations,
then favor *pel 'to strike, beat' (Pokorny) as root of the Latin
word. Thus they can easily explain its first meaning of army,
and populo(r) 'lay waste, ravage', while the shift from army
to people is, in my opinion, wanting - are all members of
a population spending their life beating and striking?
The shift from army to people is not unheard of. In fact, just that
has happened with the Grk. la[w]ós. No long explanation needed.
However, that doesn't mean that it justifies in any way such an
explanation of "populus" (as shown by Kilday).
.
- References:
- Etymology of Houbit and haben
- From: Todd
- Re: Etymology of Houbit and haben
- From: Franz Gnaedinger
- Re: Etymology of Houbit and haben
- From: Franz Gnaedinger
- Etymology of Houbit and haben
- Prev by Date: Re: unnatural languages
- Next by Date: Re: intrinsic advantage of Latin alphabet over bopomofo (for Chinese)??
- Previous by thread: Re: Etymology of Houbit and haben
- Next by thread: Re: Etymology of Houbit and haben
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|