txakur/dzhagaru/cachorro...

[X99Lynx at aol.com]

In a message dated 1/3/2001 9:37:58 PM, jozo.kapovic at zg.tel.hr writes:
<< it's hard to believe that *kotiti seN ("to bear cub (for some animals)") a
would have come from *kot7, because cats were not so (economically)
important. Some contamination of the roots has almost certainly been present.
>>

Just a note to point out again that the "semantic" end is not one that can be
handled so easily.  The "importance" of the cat, as well as how that word was
used to describe animals, is pretty much opaque to us.  There are dozens of
ways the term could have been transferred that are not within our modern
understanding.  It's pertinent to remember that for example the historic word
"cattle" in English can be traced with some precision not to livestock, but
to a legal term for personal property.  Its use to describe bovines is fairly
recent.  If the preliterate word "cat" referred to a function of an animal or
a matter of property or status or a place of origin, then we may be at a loss
to know how the transfer of meaning occurred.  Such uncertainty should
caution our willingness to eliminate paths of development on simple semantic
impressions.

Regards,
Steve Long