Re: proof that most etymologies are only fairy-tales

On Aug 5, 10:20 am, "Ekkehard Dengler" <ED...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Harlan Messinger wrote:
Ekkehard Dengler wrote:
John Atkinson wrote:

*bher- [boil] > Latin fermentum, Greek porphu:ro:, Sanskrit bhurati

*bher- [brown] > English brown, Greek phru:nos, (with suffix, via
*bhruHnos); and Sanskrit babhru-, Gaulish beberu-, Latin fiber,
English beaver, Lithuanian bebrus, Russian bobr, Avestan bawra (with
reduplication, via *bhebhru-); and English bear, Lithuanian be:ras
(via bhe:ro-)

*bher- [carry] > Old Irish beirid, Latin fero:, English bear,
Albanian bie, Greek phero:, Armenian berem, Sanskrit bharati,
Tocharian p&r, Russian beru, Lithuanian beriu; and OCS breme, Greek
ferma, Sanskrit bharman (with suffix, via *bhermn-); and Latin
fors, English birth, Sankrit bhrti- (with suffix, via *bhrtis)

*bher- [cure] > Lithuanian burti, Albanian bar, Greek pharmakon

*bher- [strike, bore] > Latin ferio:, English bore, Greek pharao:,
Irish bern, Lithuanian bar(i)u, Russian borju, Armenian brem,
Persian burrad, Sanskrit brna:ti; and Old Irish bruid, latin
frustum, English bruise, Albanian bresh@r (with suffix, via
*bhreus-)

*bher- [weave] > Lithuanian burvam, Greek pharos (with suffix via
*bhrw-, bolt of cloth)

How does one decide that *bher-, *bher-, *bher-, *bher- and *bher-
are separate roots, though, other than on the basis of perceived
semantic plausibility?

You'd have to be able to observe *their* etymology. Sort of like the
situation with "rare".

Obviously, but you snipped the "supposing German were Proto-Indo-European"
bit. Reconstructed roots are hard to etymologise.

Well ... that's where the other half of historical linguistics kicks
in: internal reconstruction.

.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast