Lexical Retention

[Patrick C. Ryan]

Dear Joat and IEists:

 ----- Original Message -----
From: <JoatSimeon at aol.com>
Sent: Friday, July 16, 1999 11:43 AM

Joat wrote:

> As time goes on, any given language gives us less and less information about
> previous forms.  Information is _lost_.

> Eg., no amount of analysis of Germanic will give you a PIE word for "bear"
> because that word dropped out of that family.  All you'll get is variations
> on "the brown one".

Pat responds:

You have chosen an example about which we are singularly poorly informed ---
not to mention the influence of possible taboo deformation.

If I assumed that, regardless of its highly unusual form (*R:k{^}tho-s), the
basis for 'bear'-words is the IE root *rek-, 'tower above', it would not be
true that the ultimate root was not attested in Germanic.

In any case, you have it rather backwards. If the root and all manifestions
of it (like, perhaps, in 'bear') were absent in Germanic, what would, as it
has, make possible our reconstructing an IE root would be its presence in,
at least, three (nominally) other branches.

I thought I made clear that I was talking about *CVC-roots. Your example
does not really address my assertion.

Pat

PATRICK C. RYAN (501) 227-9947; FAX/DATA (501)312-9947 9115 W. 34th St.
Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 USA WEBPAGES:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803 and PROTO-RELIGION:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803/proto-religion/indexR.html "Veit
ek, at ek hekk, vindga meipi, nftr allar nmu, geiri undapr . . . a ~eim
meipi er mangi veit hvers hann af rstum renn." (Havamal 138)