Re: Etymology da/no venstre

Harlan Messinger wrote:
frgn@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Feb 26, 5:41 pm, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removet...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Then your conclusions rely on premises that are contradicted by facts
that are known about how these Latin roots were formed, and your
conclusions are invalid.

The -t goes with the pas-, not with the -or.

pasco pavi pastum, *pa- 'to feed' (cf. pabulum 'fodder')
1) (cattle) graze, let be at grass; breed cattle;
2) to feed, nourish, rearing;
3a) let grow (barbam),
3b) feast on (oculos);
4) mediopassiv

Here the root, or semantic element at the begin of the word,
is given as *pa- 'to feed'. You tell me the root is past-. My
root is PAS. What are you speaking of, semantics or grammar?

Your root is wrong.

Latin was "divided into groups of words that were given the same
ending"? You think Latin was created by a bunch of people who spoke
something else, and then decided to create Latin by committee, playing
the kind of word games that you play?

The grammar gives -us, -um, etc. as endings, but grammar
is not entirely in accordance with semantics.

The semantics are that -us represents the perfect and applies it to the
root. By the way, for your information, available text in Old Latin
confirms this--it isn't an invention, unlike your scheme.

In the making
of Latin, a great variety of words was united, divided into
groups of words that were given the same ending, for example
-us, in my opinion a shortened NOS that became Greek -os.
An example. On an Etruscan sherd found in the agora of
Athens is kept the inscription TYRSANOS which I read as
TYR SA NOS,

Of course you do.

mind NOS of the one who overcomes in the
double sense of rule and give TYR and who does it from
above SA (downward). Now the same name is present in
Roman Saturnus and English Saturn, from SA TYR NOS,
original NOS changed to -nus and shortened to -n. Other
shortenings of the same NOS are Greek -os and Latin -us.
These endings are then testifying to the very ancient idea
of a living universe, all kinds of objects being alive, having
a mind of their own, or being inhabited by spirits and by
the souls of ancestors. Another ending is -ter, for example
in pater 'father' or in mater 'mother'. I read pater as derivative
of PAD TYR, he who goes ahead, leading the way PAD
and overcomes TYR, namely the animals he hunts, and
animals that menace the people of his group or tribe.
Bringing home the animals he hunted, he nourishes his
family and tribe.

Did you ever notice how conventional language reconstruction doesn't
involve having to make up never-ending stories rife with metaphors
attributed to prehistoric peoples about which the postulant couldn't
have the slightest knowledge (like when Hollywood invents dialog for Ben
Hur and his wife), while your reconstructions rely on imaginary
scenarios, motivations, and metaphors that are purely your invention?

The comparative form is PAS meaning
everywhere in a plain, here, south and north of me, east
and west of me, the way cattle graze, getting everywhere,
so that a pastor 'herdsman' had to follow them around,
the same for a hunter in earlier times, he had to go around,
following his prey, so PAS is present in those words, neither
*pa- nor past-. *pa- 'to feed' is given by the nourishing aspect
of the father as hunter, and past- is an artificial root produced
by the removal of the ending -us.

In other words, you haven't chosen to invent it that way.

The complete form is
pas-t-us, -t- standing for an omitted word, as -n in Saturn
from Saturnus from SA TYR NOS attested in the Etruscan
permutation TYRSANOS. An interesting case is mater 'mother'.
My analoguous reading is MAD TYR, she who overcomes TYR
by learning and knowing MAD, which, if holding, would shed new
light on the role of women in the Ice Age as keepers of knowledge.

Why is one thing you invented interesting in regard to another thing you
invented? Something you invented can't shed light on anything, let alone
on something else that you invented.

No, no, you can't say that. If he invents one thing and then
another, he can equally invent the (no less believable) light
shedding process between them. :-)
pjk


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Etymology da/no venstre
    ... You tell me the root is past-. ... Latin was "divided into groups of words that were given the same ending"? ... By the way, for your information, available text in Old Latin confirms this--it isn't an invention, unlike your scheme. ... TYR SA NOS, ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Etymology da/no venstre
    ... that are known about how these Latin roots were formed, ... You tell me the root is past-. ... in my opinion a shortened NOS that became Greek -os. ... TYR SA NOS, mind NOS of the one who overcomes in the ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: s->h
    ... fall, Russian padat', to fall) and also foot (> *pedom, footprint, ... ground, and Russian pod, hearth -- also the preposition pod, under, I ... " Latin peda, sole, footprint" ... ped/pod seem to be the same root. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: when did oinos become oinos/oikos/oiwos ("one")
    ... Greek and Latvian it probably only had that meaning. ... If Latvian is a satem language, it's impossible for Latvian eka to be cognate with Greek ... oi-no> Latin unus, and with a different suffix -ka became IIr. ... H1oi-, in *H1oinos and H1oikos, is just the same root in o-grade. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Roots of English language
    ... but have you ever taken a Linguistics course? ... > descended from the same ancestral root; ... > Spanish word descended from the same Latin word. ... > cognate itself, ...
    (sci.lang)
Loading