Re: proof that most etymologies are only fairy-tales
- From: Dušan Vukotić <dusan.vukotic@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 13:15:56 -0700 (PDT)
On Aug 3, 6:42 pm, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removet...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dušan Vukotić wrote:
Is there anyone who is able to explain the homonymy of English bear
(carry, cause to be born) and bear (omnivorous animal/mammal)? Why and
how has it happened?
Because there isn't any reason why it *wouldn't* happen, and both words
evolved in unsurprising ways to become, as it happens, homonyms.
And how that "unsurprising way" looked like? Could you be more
specific? What bear (carry, cause to be born, bring forth) and bear
(animal) have in common? Maybe you believe it happened by chance? But
what if there is no accidental word-developing within the IE
vocabulary?
DV
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: proof that most etymologies are only fairy-tales
- From: Harlan Messinger
- Re: proof that most etymologies are only fairy-tales
- References:
- proof that most etymologies are only fairy-tales
- From: analyst41
- Re: proof that most etymologies are only fairy-tales
- From: Dušan Vukotić
- Re: proof that most etymologies are only fairy-tales
- From: Harlan Messinger
- proof that most etymologies are only fairy-tales
- Prev by Date: Re: Minerva-paper on the Phaistos Disk : The main argument
- Next by Date: Re: Guitar teetering
- Previous by thread: Re: proof that most etymologies are only fairy-tales
- Next by thread: Re: proof that most etymologies are only fairy-tales
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|