Magdalenian KOD meaning tent, hut, a word of very many derivatives

[Franz Gnaedinger]

In my Magdalenian thread I wrote these lines

KOD DhAG accounts for Hebrew qodash modern kadosh 'holy' Arabic mu'qaddas
'sanctified, holy, consecrated' Turkish mukaddas 'holy (of places)' Persian
mogaddes 'holy, sanctified, sanctuaries' and has a parallel in Italian casa
di Dio 'house of God' for a church. Further derivatives of KOD are for example
Hebrew xasa (chasa) 'find protection' and 'setér 'hidden place, secret'.

whereupon Ruud Harmsen replied (quote)

Which x or ch is that? Anyway, it's not a q. Q was already distinct in
Proto-Semitic and Proto-whatsthenewofthatwiderlanguagefamily. If there
is a connection in the more remote past, that is:
1) unknown to us,
2) highly unlikely.

So what is your evidence that such a connection has existed?

(end of quote)

I don't understand the question. My reconstruction of KOD for tent, hut,
dates from 2006 and was inspired by a comment by Douglas G. Kilday.
The word has very many derivatives, among them cottage, hut, shed,
German Kate 'hut' and Hütte 'hut', Latin casa English house German Haus,
French château English castle, French cité English city, then also hat
as casing of the head, coat as casing of the body, and many many more
examples I gave over the years, in fact it is a most basic word in
hypothetical Magdalenian. This year I added a few more examples from
languages in Asia Minor, especially Hebrew and Arabic. Those languages,
my claim, evolved from the Late Magdalenian spoken in the region of
the Göbekli Tepe 12,000 years ago, and were blended with Afroasiatic
languages. A couple of words are still clearly recognizeable, especially
in the regligious context, as I explained many times. When you look at
language evolution and development ('evodevo' in biological lingo) the
original K branched into various different consonants: K(ate) c(ottage)
sh(ed) h(ut). You have to learn to look at language the way it actually
evolved over time: along the flow of time, not against it.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
In my Magdalenian thread I wrote these lines
KOD DhAG accounts for Hebrew qodash modern kadosh 'holy'

Why do you continue to repeat this lie? Those are _two different words_.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
In my Magdalenian thread I wrote these lines
KOD DhAG accounts for Hebrew qodash modern kadosh 'holy'

Why do you continue to repeat this lie? Those are _two different words_.

Don't you know from Magdalenian 101 that one is an 'overforming' of the other?!

[Ruud Harmsen]

Sat, 21 Jul 2018 01:14:55 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
In my Magdalenian thread I wrote these lines
KOD DhAG accounts for Hebrew qodash modern kadosh 'holy'

Why do you continue to repeat this lie? Those are _two different words_.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q-D-%C5%A0
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D7%A7%D7%93%D7%95%D7%A9

Same root, apparently.

[Franz Gnaedinger]

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Why do you continue to repeat this lie? Those are _two different words_.

You said that before, but again whithout explaining the difference. I don't
claim that they are the same word, I say that they go back to the same word,
ultimately to a sanctuary and what is related to the sanctuary, priesthood,
holyness, even the Holy Land. Please make your replies more informative.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Franz Gnaedinger

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Why do you continue to repeat this lie? Those are _two different words_.

You said that before, but again whithout explaining the difference. I don't
claim that they are the same word, I say that they go back to the same word,

No, that's not what you said.

Obviously, they are formed from the same Semitic root.

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
ultimately to a sanctuary and what is related to the sanctuary, priesthood,
holyness, even the Holy Land. Please make your replies more informative.

Semitic has plenty of different roots for those concepts. They are not
all crammed into a single root.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Sat, 21 Jul 2018 00:38:21 -0700 (PDT): Franz Gnaedinger

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
This year I added a few more examples from
languages in Asia Minor, especially Hebrew and Arabic. Those languages,
my claim, evolved from the Late Magdalenian spoken in the region of
the Göbekli Tepe 12,000 years ago, and were blended with Afroasiatic
languages.

Hebrew and Arabic ARE Afroasiatic languages, of the semitic branch.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Sat, 21 Jul 2018 00:38:21 -0700 (PDT): Franz Gnaedinger

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
In my Magdalenian thread I wrote these lines
KOD DhAG accounts for Hebrew qodash modern kadosh 'holy' Arabic mu'qaddas
'sanctified, holy, consecrated' Turkish mukaddas 'holy (of places)' Persian
mogaddes 'holy, sanctified, sanctuaries' and has a parallel in Italian casa
di Dio 'house of God' for a church. Further derivatives of KOD are for example
Hebrew xasa (chasa) 'find protection' and 'setér 'hidden place, secret'.
whereupon Ruud Harmsen replied (quote)
Which x or ch is that? Anyway, it's not a q. Q was already distinct in
Proto-Semitic and Proto-whatsthenewofthatwiderlanguagefamily. If there
1) unknown to us,
2) highly unlikely.
So what is your evidence that such a connection has existed?
(end of quote)
I don't understand the question.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Hebrew#Phonology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_alphabet#History
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleo-Hebrew_alphabet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_alphabet

Which phoneme/letter do you mean by "ch" of "x"?

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
Further derivatives of KOD are for example
Hebrew xasa (chasa) 'find protection' and 'setér 'hidden place, secret'.

In other words, how is the xasa of chasa spelled in Hebrew letters?

[Ruud Harmsen]

Sat, 21 Jul 2018 00:38:21 -0700 (PDT): Franz Gnaedinger

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
12,000 years ago, and were blended with Afroasiatic
languages. A couple of words are still clearly recognizeable, especially
in the regligious context, as I explained many times.

When comparing Latin words with their modern counterparts, like French
or Portuguese, we see considerable change. Same when comparing Gothic
with Dutch (even though Gothic is not a grandparent of Dutch, but a
great-uncle).

Here we work at a time scale of between 1500 and 2500 years.

So how can it be likely that languages supposedly cognate, assuming a
common ancestor some 12,000 years ago, still betray the same
consonants in many cases?

This is a question to Franz, but also to Daud Deden.

[Daud Deden]

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Sat, 21 Jul 2018 00:38:21 -0700 (PDT): Franz Gnaedinger

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
12,000 years ago, and were blended with Afroasiatic
languages. A couple of words are still clearly recognizeable, especially
in the regligious context, as I explained many times.

When comparing Latin words with their modern counterparts, like French
or Portuguese, we see considerable change. Same when comparing Gothic
with Dutch (even though Gothic is not a grandparent of Dutch, but a
great-uncle).
Here we work at a time scale of between 1500 and 2500 years.
So how can it be likely that languages supposedly cognate, assuming a
common ancestor some 12,000 years ago, still betray the same
consonants in many cases?
This is a question to Franz, but also to Daud Deden.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

Ruud, just an example. A word (sound) = a faunal physical body, niche & behavior/phenotype; a word (meaning)
= a faunal genotype(biochemical protein replication-modification factory. Both evolve but have different boundaries & mechanisms of change. The result is that consonants can change very little, or change very much, often in large part due to local weather impact.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Sat, 21 Jul 2018 13:20:20 -0700 (PDT): Daud Deden

Post by Daud Deden

Post by Ruud Harmsen
When comparing Latin words with their modern counterparts, like French
or Portuguese, we see considerable change. Same when comparing Gothic
with Dutch (even though Gothic is not a grandparent of Dutch, but a
great-uncle).
Here we work at a time scale of between 1500 and 2500 years.
So how can it be likely that languages supposedly cognate, assuming a
common ancestor some 12,000 years ago, still betray the same
consonants in many cases?
This is a question to Franz, but also to Daud Deden.

Ruud, just an example. A word (sound) = a faunal physical body, niche &
behavior/phenotype; a word (meaning) = a faunal genotype(biochemical
protein replication-modification factory. Both evolve but have different
boundaries & mechanisms of change. The result is that consonants can
change very little, or change very much, often in large part due to local
weather impact.

Sorry, this is beyond my comprehension capabilities. I am simply not
smart enough to understand you. That probably means that you are
right.

[Daud Deden]

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Sat, 21 Jul 2018 13:20:20 -0700 (PDT): Daud Deden

Post by Daud Deden

Post by Ruud Harmsen
When comparing Latin words with their modern counterparts, like French
or Portuguese, we see considerable change. Same when comparing Gothic
with Dutch (even though Gothic is not a grandparent of Dutch, but a
great-uncle).
Here we work at a time scale of between 1500 and 2500 years.
So how can it be likely that languages supposedly cognate, assuming a
common ancestor some 12,000 years ago, still betray the same
consonants in many cases?
This is a question to Franz, but also to Daud Deden.

Ruud, just an example. A word (sound) = a faunal physical body, niche &
behavior/phenotype; a word (meaning) = a faunal genotype(biochemical
protein replication-modification factory. Both evolve but have different
boundaries & mechanisms of change. The result is that consonants can
change very little, or change very much, often in large part due to local
weather impact.

Sorry, this is beyond my comprehension capabilities. I am simply not
smart enough to understand you. That probably means that you are
right.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

A consonant may be permanent or it may be transient, due to environmental factors. If a tropical rainforest people move to a drier climate, many vowels may remain but some consonants will reduce, to save water. A prolonged aaaaah sound causes a significant loss of lung moisture, very costly unless one is living waterside. If you think this is nonsense, I can assure you that arid climate definitely affects speech patterns.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Daud Deden
A consonant may be permanent or it may be transient, due to environmental factors. If a tropical rainforest people move to a drier climate, many vowels may remain but some consonants will reduce, to save water. A prolonged aaaaah sound causes a significant loss of lung moisture, very costly unless one is living waterside. If you think this is nonsense, I can assure you that arid climate definitely affects speech patterns.

Pater Schmidt drew elaborate maps to demonstrate the correlations between
climate and language features. There aren't any.

[Daud Deden]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Daud Deden
A consonant may be permanent or it may be transient, due to environmental factors. If a tropical rainforest people move to a drier climate, many vowels may remain but some consonants will reduce, to save water. A prolonged aaaaah sound causes a significant loss of lung moisture, very costly unless one is living waterside. If you think this is nonsense, I can assure you that arid climate definitely affects speech patterns.

Pater Schmidt drew elaborate maps to demonstrate the correlations between
climate and language features. There aren't any.

I haven't seen any productions by Peter Schmidt. Aztec shows aridified sound patterns, eg. Loss of mb or change to p, as do IE dialects, and of course Khoi-San dialects. I'm referring to very long term arid effects.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Daud Deden

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Daud Deden
A consonant may be permanent or it may be transient, due to environmental factors. If a tropical rainforest people move to a drier climate, many vowels may remain but some consonants will reduce, to save water. A prolonged aaaaah sound causes a significant loss of lung moisture, very costly unless one is living waterside. If you think this is nonsense, I can assure you that arid climate definitely affects speech patterns.

Pater Schmidt drew elaborate maps to demonstrate the correlations between
climate and language features. There aren't any.

I haven't seen any productions by Peter Schmidt.

Who's Peter Schmidt?

Pater W. Schmidt edited the journal _Anthropos_ for many years and
published *Die Sprachfamilien und Sprachenkreise der Welt* in 1926 with
an accompanying atlas; this was one of the first works to attempt a
typological investigation of the world's languages. He recognized the
distinction between inherited and shared (areal) features.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprachfamilien_der_Welt#Historische_Literatur

I discussed it briefly in my article in the Festschrift for Bill Bright:

1997 “Surveys of Languages of the World,” pp. 193–219 in The Life of Language: Papers in Linguistics in Honor of William Bright, ed. Jane Hill, Lyle Campbell, and P. J. Mistry (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter)

Post by Daud Deden
Aztec shows aridified sound patterns, eg. Loss of mb or change to p, as do IE dialects, and of course Khoi-San dialects. I'm referring to very long term arid effects.

Ri-i-i-ight.

[Daud Deden]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Daud Deden

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Daud Deden
A consonant may be permanent or it may be transient, due to environmental factors. If a tropical rainforest people move to a drier climate, many vowels may remain but some consonants will reduce, to save water. A prolonged aaaaah sound causes a significant loss of lung moisture, very costly unless one is living waterside. If you think this is nonsense, I can assure you that arid climate definitely affects speech patterns.

Pater Schmidt drew elaborate maps to demonstrate the correlations between
climate and language features. There aren't any.

I haven't seen any productions by Peter Schmidt.

Who's Peter Schmidt?

Ok, a typo.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Pater W. Schmidt edited the journal _Anthropos_ for many years and
published *Die Sprachfamilien und Sprachenkreise der Welt* in 1926 with
an accompanying atlas; this was one of the first works to attempt a
typological investigation of the world's languages. He recognized the
distinction between inherited and shared (areal) features.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprachfamilien_der_Welt#Historische_Literatur
1997 “Surveys of Languages of the World,” pp. 193–219 in The Life of Language: Papers in Linguistics in Honor of William Bright, ed. Jane Hill, Lyle Campbell, and P. J. Mistry (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter)

Thanks, will check.

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Daud Deden
Aztec shows aridified sound patterns, eg. Loss of mb or change to p, as do IE dialects, and of course Khoi-San dialects. I'm referring to very long term arid effects.

Ri-i-i-ight.

To claim sustained aridity has no effect on speech is a b-i-i-ig stretch IMO. But let me check Pater's productions at library. (Google autocorrect prefers Peter.)

[António Marques]

Post by Daud Deden
To claim sustained aridity has no effect on speech is a b-i-i-ig stretch IMO.

It works the other way around. The claim that something DOES have an effect
on something else calls for a reasonable amount of positive AND negative
evidence.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Mon, 23 Jul 2018 04:05:13 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Daud Deden

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Pater Schmidt drew elaborate maps to demonstrate the correlations between
climate and language features. There aren't any.

I haven't seen any productions by Peter Schmidt.

Who's Peter Schmidt?
Pater W. Schmidt

You mean
<https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Schmidt_(Ethnologe)> ?

Calling him Pater W. Schmidt suggests, the American way, that his
first name wat Pater. But it seems to have been Wilhelm. So Pater is
German (and Dutch) for Father, being the title of a priest. Right?

Post by Peter T. Daniels
edited the journal _Anthropos_ for many years and
published *Die Sprachfamilien und Sprachenkreise der Welt* in 1926 with
an accompanying atlas; this was one of the first works to attempt a
typological investigation of the world's languages. He recognized the
distinction between inherited and shared (areal) features.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprachfamilien_der_Welt#Historische_Literatur

[Ruud Harmsen]

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Pater W. Schmidt

You mean
<https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Schmidt_(Ethnologe)> ?
Calling him Pater W. Schmidt suggests, the American way, that his
first name wat Pater. But it seems to have been Wilhelm. So Pater is
German (and Dutch) for Father, being the title of a priest. Right?

"Wilhelm Schmidt war Sohn eines Hüttenarbeiters. Bereits mit 15
Jahren trat er in die Missionsgesellschaft der Missionare vom
Göttlichen Wort (Societas Verbi Divini) in Steyl (Niederlande) ein.
Die Priesterweihe erfolgte 1892 im Missionshaus St. Gabriel in Maria
Enzersdorf (Bezirk Mödling bei Wien). "

[Franz Gnaedinger]

Post by Ruud Harmsen
When comparing Latin words with their modern counterparts, like French
or Portuguese, we see considerable change. Same when comparing Gothic
with Dutch (even though Gothic is not a grandparent of Dutch, but a
great-uncle).
Here we work at a time scale of between 1500 and 2500 years.
So how can it be likely that languages supposedly cognate, assuming a
common ancestor some 12,000 years ago, still betray the same
consonants in many cases?

The measure of change in words is not linear, as the mutation rate in
genomes, but linked to material progress. Millions of years people used the
same quite simple hand axes (the making of which, however, requires great
skills), the Neanderthals sparked fire from hitting stone on stone (a new
discovery, they did not depend on volcanoes and flashes but made fire
themselves) but used fairly simple tools, with the arrival of CroMagnons
tool making exploded, especially in the Magdalenian period of time, and then
the evolution and development of the material civilization could not be hold
up anymore, from the Göbekli Tepe to Asia Minor to Europe and America.
Information technology alone created twenty thousand English words and terms.
Word change is coupled to material change: slow in early times, fast in
our time.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Mon, 23 Jul 2018 00:19:36 -0700 (PDT): Franz Gnaedinger

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
Word change is coupled to material change: slow in early times, fast in
our time.

When looking at real-life examples such as Portuguese and Dutch, I did
not see such an effect. (http://rudhar.com/lingtics/tuktalvr/, in
Dutch.) If by "early times" you mean "more than 4000 years ago", I
say: we do not know.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Mon, 23 Jul 2018 00:19:36 -0700 (PDT): Franz Gnaedinger

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
Word change is coupled to material change: slow in early times, fast in
our time.

When looking at real-life examples such as Portuguese and Dutch, I did
not see such an effect. (http://rudhar.com/lingtics/tuktalvr/, in
Dutch.) If by "early times" you mean "more than 4000 years ago", I
say: we do not know.

Maybe because there wasn't any Dutch, or English, or German, 4000 years ago.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Tue, 24 Jul 2018 05:21:08 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Mon, 23 Jul 2018 00:19:36 -0700 (PDT): Franz Gnaedinger

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
Word change is coupled to material change: slow in early times, fast in
our time.

When looking at real-life examples such as Portuguese and Dutch, I did
not see such an effect. (http://rudhar.com/lingtics/tuktalvr/, in
Dutch.) If by "early times" you mean "more than 4000 years ago", I
say: we do not know.

Maybe because there wasn't any Dutch, or English, or German, 4000 years ago.

Right. Between Proto-Germanic at say 1000 BC there was a gradual
development towards North-Gemanic, East-Germanic and West-Germanic,
then towards the Germanic languages as we know them today, all with a
pace largely consistent with that of other languages and language
families throughout the world.

But between Proto-Germanic and Magdalenian at 12,000 BC, there was
hardly any change, because Dutch, English and German, the engines of
language change, did not exist.

It makes sense! Franzian Deden Logic (FDL)! Thanks PTD!

[Ruud Harmsen]

Sat, 21 Jul 2018 00:38:21 -0700 (PDT): Franz Gnaedinger

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
You have to learn to look at language the way it actually
evolved over time: along the flow of time, not against it.

If there is evidence, yes. But on your timescale, there isn't any.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Sat, 21 Jul 2018 00:38:21 -0700 (PDT): Franz Gnaedinger

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
When you look at
language evolution and development ('evodevo' in biological lingo) the
original K branched into various different consonants: K(ate) c(ottage)
sh(ed) h(ut).

Over about 2500 years, yes. And longer than that? We know some, using
evidence from Avestan, Sanskrit etcetera. Perhaps 4000 or 6000 years.

Beyond that: WE JUST DON'T KNOW. There is no data.

Did you ever read about Hungarian and Finnish and the few languages in
that (or those? not all scholar even agree) same language family? Did
you see how hard it is to distinghuish genetic development from old
loans?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Uralic_language
7 thousand to 2 thousand years ago, scientists do not agree.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finno-Ugric_languages#Origins
"The validity of Finno-Ugric as a genetic grouping is under challenge,
[...]"

If this is already so difficult, while many living languages still
exist so they can be studied, how can you make any statements about a
hypothetical language of TWELVE thousand years ago?

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
branched into various different consonants: K(ate) c(ottage)
sh(ed) h(ut).

The k of Kate and the c of cottage is the same sound. The difference
of spelling only.

English shed does non derive from an IE k, like the h of house does:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/house#Etymology_1
Note the word "possibly".

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/shed#Etymology_1

A completely distinct etymology.

[António Marques]

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Sat, 21 Jul 2018 00:38:21 -0700 (PDT): Franz Gnaedinger

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
When you look at
language evolution and development ('evodevo' in biological lingo) the
original K branched into various different consonants: K(ate) c(ottage)
sh(ed) h(ut).

Over about 2500 years, yes. And longer than that? We know some, using
evidence from Avestan, Sanskrit etcetera. Perhaps 4000 or 6000 years.
Beyond that: WE JUST DON'T KNOW. There is no data.
Did you ever read about Hungarian and Finnish and the few languages in
that (or those? not all scholar even agree) same language family? Did
you see how hard it is to distinghuish genetic development from old
loans?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Uralic_language
7 thousand to 2 thousand years ago, scientists do not agree.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finno-Ugric_languages#Origins
"The validity of Finno-Ugric as a genetic grouping is under challenge,
[...]"
If this is already so difficult, while many living languages still
exist so they can be studied, how can you make any statements about a
hypothetical language of TWELVE thousand years ago?

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
branched into various different consonants: K(ate) c(ottage)
sh(ed) h(ut).

The k of Kate and the c of cottage is the same sound. The difference
of spelling only.

I have no idea why you keep repeating the same things to folks who don’t
listen, so I might just as well take the opportunity to point out that Kate
is consistently more aspirated than cottage.

Post by Ruud Harmsen
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/house#Etymology_1
Note the word "possibly".
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/shed#Etymology_1
A completely distinct etymology.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Sat, 21 Jul 2018 18:06:31 -0000 (UTC): António Marques

I have no idea why you keep repeating the same things to folks who don’t
listen, so I might just as well take the opportunity to point out that Kate
is consistently more aspirated than cottage.

Really? And that corresponds with the spelling?

I don't know, because one of the defects in my English accents is that
I hardly aspirate at all.

[Franz Gnaedinger]

Post by António Marques
I have no idea why you keep repeating the same things to folks who don’t
listen, so I might just as well take the opportunity to point out that Kate
is consistently more aspirated than cottage.

When a theory tries to fix each and every tiny detail the time for change
has come. Ptolemaic astronomy in the era of Copernicus used 111 (one-hundred-
and-eleven) epicycles that made calculations cumbersome and not much more
accurate. Young Max Planck was told by his professor that studying physics
is not worthwhile anymore, all big problems are solved, only a few details
to figure out are left. And in our time the comparative method tries to fix
every Proto-form with an arsenal of diacritics, not leaving a breathing space
for an early word. Magdalenian revives the pioneering days of the comparative
method and offers a wider understanding of word branching than PIE. Word
branching means that consonants are split up in slightly different consonants
in order to form new words with related meanings. PIE has a problem in that
respect, unable of bringing together Latin deus and Greek theos, Latin habere
and German haben English have, or the six homonyms *bher-. The ultra-rigid
application of the alleged sound laws (that are but rules, outward approxi-
mations to the physiology and neurology of speaking, a shadow of the real
thing, as it were) hinders people from recognizing wider connections between
words. I wonder whether the comparative method was easily accepted five
hundred years ago - 'What, our Homer and Virgil spoke languages that are
related to the stutterings of them Indian half-monkeys?' - I guess that was
a rather common reaction of academe, eliminated from historiography out of
retrospective shame.

[António Marques]

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
And in our time the comparative method tries to fix
every Proto-form with an arsenal of diacritics,

Whenever resconstruction starts to look like statistical regression we do
have a problem, yes. But every linguist cares about that problem. Only
reasonable results get currency.

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
PIE has a problem in that
respect, unable of bringing together Latin deus and Greek theos, Latin habere
and German haben English have,

You have never been explained why you think that a purpose of comparative
linguistics is to demonstrate a common origin for modern words that look
similar. Could you explain it, sticking to the point?

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
I wonder whether the comparative method was easily accepted five
hundred years ago - 'What, our Homer and Virgil spoke languages that are
related to the stutterings of them Indian half-monkeys?'

Five hundred years ago folks were not as racist as two hundred and fifty
years ago, when that connection was established. And indeed it was
established by saying that the language of the Indians was more
sophisticated than that of the Romans or Greeks.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by António Marques

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
And in our time the comparative method tries to fix
every Proto-form with an arsenal of diacritics,

Whenever resconstruction starts to look like statistical regression we do
have a problem, yes. But every linguist cares about that problem. Only
reasonable results get currency.

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
PIE has a problem in that
respect, unable of bringing together Latin deus and Greek theos, Latin habere
and German haben English have,

You have never been explained why you think that a purpose of comparative
linguistics is to demonstrate a common origin for modern words that look
similar. Could you explain it, sticking to the point?

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
I wonder whether the comparative method was easily accepted five
hundred years ago - 'What, our Homer and Virgil spoke languages that are
related to the stutterings of them Indian half-monkeys?'

Five hundred years ago folks were not as racist as two hundred and fifty
years ago, when that connection was established. And indeed it was
established by saying that the language of the Indians was more
sophisticated than that of the Romans or Greeks.

"When it comes to linguistic form, Plato walks with the Macedonian
swineherd, Confucius with the head-hunting savage of Assam." --Edward
Sapir, *Language* (1921), 219

[Franz Gnaedinger]

Post by António Marques
You have never been explained why you think that a purpose of comparative
linguistics is to demonstrate a common origin for modern words that look
similar. Could you explain it, sticking to the point?

The origin of the comparative method was the recognition of connections
between words. My approach is just extending that recognition, reviving
the original spirit.

Post by António Marques
Five hundred years ago folks were not as racist as two hundred and fifty
years ago, when that connection was established. And indeed it was
established by saying that the language of the Indians was more
sophisticated than that of the Romans or Greeks.

Yes, William Jones did in his famous address, but I guess that was not
the beginning but the end of a long struggle within academe. No racism
five hundred years ago? You are dreaming. Don't you know what your
ancestors did across the Atlantic Ocean?

[António Marques]

Post by Franz Gnaedinger

Post by António Marques
You have never been explained why you think that a purpose of comparative
linguistics is to demonstrate a common origin for modern words that look
similar. Could you explain it, sticking to the point?

The origin of the comparative method was the recognition of connections
between words. My approach is just extending that recognition, reviving
the original spirit.

While similar words may have been the trigger - otherwise there would have
been no suspicion of relatedness - comparative linguistics began when
*systematic* correspondences were found; before that, all there was was the
idea that each language had merely mangled prebabelian words in a random
way.

So, no, the purpose of comparative linguistics was never to find a common
origin for similar words, as such. What was there to find? Just take the
modern words and there you have your ‘proto’ form. What’s there to
investigate?

Post by Franz Gnaedinger

Post by António Marques
Five hundred years ago folks were not as racist as two hundred and fifty
years ago, when that connection was established. And indeed it was
established by saying that the language of the Indians was more
sophisticated than that of the Romans or Greeks.

Yes, William Jones did in his famous address, but I guess that was not
the beginning but the end of a long struggle within academe.

Just for how long do you think academe had a working knowledge of Sanskrit
before Jones?

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
No racism
five hundred years ago? You are dreaming. Don't you know what your
ancestors did across the Atlantic Ocean?

Exploited the locals while mixing with them. Not my ancestors, their
cousins. My ancestors stayed here.

[Franz Gnaedinger]

Post by António Marques
Just for how long do you think academe had a working knowledge of Sanskrit
before Jones?

There are more than two centuries between the letter by the Jesuit missionary
Francis Xavier (1544) and the evidence presented by Gaston Coeurdoux (1768)
and the famous Calcutta address by William Jones (1786). What happened in
those two-hundred years?

[Ruud Harmsen]

Mon, 23 Jul 2018 00:38:01 -0700 (PDT): Franz Gnaedinger

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
And in our time the comparative method tries to fix
every Proto-form with an arsenal of diacritics, not leaving a breathing space
for an early word.

The diacritics of Proto-IE indicate what we do and do not know.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Mon, 23 Jul 2018 00:38:01 -0700 (PDT): Franz Gnaedinger

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
Word
branching means that consonants are split up in slightly different consonants
in order to form new words with related meanings.

No such thing has ever been observed in real languages, current or
historic.

[Franz Gnaedinger]

Post by Ruud Harmsen
No such thing has ever been observed in real languages, current or
historic.

Word branching occurs when the material culture evolves and develops,
today mainly in the field of information technology. You know what a bit is,
a morsel, a small portion of something, as word a noun to the verb bite.
A semantic branching makes bit - read as b(inary dig)it bit -, the unit of
binary information, the smallest bit of information. To bite in an apple,
to take a bite from an apple - an apple from which a bite has been taken
serves as emblem of a not unknown computer firm, while the semantic variation
byte names a higher unit of information, one byte being eight bit. You also
know what fishing is, and what phishing means: to fish for information via
an e-mail, or rather thousands of e-mails. French courrier means letter,
the variation courriel an electronic letter, courri(er) el(ectronique),
an e-mail. Back in 2005 I used the word courriel in a conversation with
a museum curator and was corrected. Meanwhile courriel is widely accepted,
and might one day appear in the Laroussel - if it wasn't already taken up
in that French dictionary.

bit bit / bite byte / fishing phishing / courrier courriel

These are semantic word branchings that need no or just a minimal 'mutation'
of how the word is written.

You may notice that the above computer terms adhere to basic functions
and activities: bit byte bite bit, to take a bite from an apple, phishing
fishing, courriel courrier from French courir 'run' German Kurier 'messenger',
also digital from digit 'finger'.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Mon, 23 Jul 2018 00:38:01 -0700 (PDT): Franz Gnaedinger

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
Magdalenian revives the pioneering days of the comparative
method and offers a wider understanding of word branching than PIE.

You mean in case of a lack of evidence, your weapon is fantasy,
instead of just admitting and accepting that many things we just do
not know.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Mon, 23 Jul 2018 00:38:01 -0700 (PDT): Franz Gnaedinger

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
PIE has a problem in that
respect, unable of bringing together Latin deus and Greek theos, Latin habere
and German haben English have, or the six homonyms *bher-.

It is not the objective of scientific etymology to "bring words
together".

[Ruud Harmsen]

Mon, 23 Jul 2018 00:38:01 -0700 (PDT): Franz Gnaedinger

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
PIE has a problem in that
respect, unable of bringing together Latin deus and Greek theos, Latin habere
and German haben English have, or the six homonyms *bher-.

English 'to have' corresponds to Latin capere, not habere.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/have#Etymology_1
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/habeo#Etymology
"English have is not a cognate. "

Why are such simple things, based on simple sound changes, attested by
loads of evidence, so hard to accept for you?

By the way, Portuguese "trago" (I carry) IS cognate with German "ich
trage". Not by the look of it, but from careful analysis of known
FACTS.

[Franz Gnaedinger]

Post by Ruud Harmsen
English 'to have' corresponds to Latin capere, not habere.

English to have corresponds to both Latin capere and habere, from the very
ancient *KAPA of which Merrit Ruhlen gave more than 130 (one-hundred-and-
thirty) derivatives in languages from all over the world. Ruhlen was a
laughing stock in sci.lang in 2003 and a couple of years longer, when this
forum was ruled by dogmaticians of sound algebra and the illusion of sound
laws holding one hundred percent.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Mon, 23 Jul 2018 23:42:29 -0700 (PDT): Franz Gnaedinger

Post by Franz Gnaedinger

Post by Ruud Harmsen
English 'to have' corresponds to Latin capere, not habere.

English to have corresponds to both Latin capere and habere,

In meaning perhaps, not in etymology. Not both.

Sometimes one word does lead to two or three in a newer language.
Through loans or later, learned words.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Mon, 23 Jul 2018 23:42:29 -0700 (PDT): Franz Gnaedinger

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
English to have corresponds to both Latin capere and habere, from the very
ancient *KAPA of which Merrit Ruhlen gave more than 130 (one-hundred-and-
thirty) derivatives in languages from all over the world. Ruhlen was a
laughing stock in sci.lang in 2003 and a couple of years longer, when this
forum was ruled by dogmaticians of sound algebra and the illusion of sound
laws holding one hundred percent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merritt_Ruhlen#Taxonomic_methods

Look like drawing a conclusion frist and then molding the evidence to
support it. Not scientific.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Mon, 23 Jul 2018 23:42:29 -0700 (PDT): Franz Gnaedinger

and the illusion of sound laws holding one hundred percent.

Noone every claimed that. The claim is that the same sound laws are
seen at work in many words, showing systematic change tendencies.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Mon, 23 Jul 2018 23:42:29 -0700 (PDT): Franz Gnaedinger

and the illusion of sound laws holding one hundred percent.

Noone every claimed that. The claim is that the same sound laws are
seen at work in many words,

Like 10, 50, a few 100. A few thousand if you're lucky.

Post by Ruud Harmsen
showing systematic change tendencies.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Franz Gnaedinger

Post by Ruud Harmsen
English 'to have' corresponds to Latin capere, not habere.

English to have corresponds to both Latin capere and habere, from the very
ancient *KAPA of which Merrit Ruhlen gave more than 130 (one-hundred-and-
thirty) derivatives in languages from all over the world. Ruhlen was a
laughing stock

still is

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
in sci.lang in 2003 and a couple of years longer, when this
forum was ruled by dogmaticians of sound algebra and the illusion of sound
laws holding one hundred percent.

[Christian Weisgerber]

Post by Ruud Harmsen
By the way, Portuguese "trago" (I carry) IS cognate with German "ich
trage". Not by the look of it, but from careful analysis of known
FACTS.

Color me skeptical.

The Portuguese word is from Latin _trahere_ which points to PIE
initial *tr-. The German word is cognate with English _draw_
and points to PIE initial *dʰr-.

[António Marques]

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by Ruud Harmsen
By the way, Portuguese "trago" (I carry) IS cognate with German "ich
trage". Not by the look of it, but from careful analysis of known
FACTS.

Color me skeptical.
The Portuguese word is from Latin _trahere_

I’m not sure. It looks as if it was from Latin *tracere and even then quite
irregular (trahere of course has the modern reflex (-)trair, but that’s
learned).

It has a /trak/ /trows/ root alternance, just where haver has /av/ /owv/.
It could conceivably have been some interference between trahere and
tragen.

Post by Christian Weisgerber
which points to PIE
initial *tr-. The German word is cognate with English _draw_
and points to PIE initial *dʰr-.

What would gothic have had?

What is drehen cognate with?

[Christian Weisgerber]

Post by António Marques

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by Ruud Harmsen
By the way, Portuguese "trago" (I carry) IS cognate with German "ich
trage".

Color me skeptical.
The Portuguese word is from Latin _trahere_

I’m not sure. It looks as if it was from Latin *tracere and even then quite
irregular (trahere of course has the modern reflex (-)trair, but that’s
learned).

Wiktionary suggests trazer is from a Vulgar Latin intermediate *tragere.
TLFi also says French traire < VL *tragere < L trahere.
(I always treat Wiktionary's etymologies with caution since I suspect
they are rather haphazardly assembled.)

Post by António Marques

Post by Christian Weisgerber
which points to PIE
initial *tr-. The German word is cognate with English _draw_
and points to PIE initial *dʰr-.

What would gothic have had?

Something without the High German consonant shift!
Wright's Gothic Glossary lists "dragan" (to carry, drag) and helpfully
connects it to OE dragan and OHG tragan.

Post by António Marques
What is drehen cognate with?

Something with thr-. Etymonline says "throw".
Compare the related cognates Draht/thread.

That apparently connects with Latin terere.

[António Marques]

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by António Marques

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by Ruud Harmsen
By the way, Portuguese "trago" (I carry) IS cognate with German "ich
trage".

Color me skeptical.
The Portuguese word is from Latin _trahere_

I’m not sure. It looks as if it was from Latin *tracere and even then quite
irregular (trahere of course has the modern reflex (-)trair, but that’s
learned).

Wiktionary suggests trazer is from a Vulgar Latin intermediate *tragere.
TLFi also says French traire < VL *tragere < L trahere.
(I always treat Wiktionary's etymologies with caution since I suspect
they are rather haphazardly assembled.)

I tend to think Latin’s spelling didn’t reflect marginal phonemes, and -h-
is suspect, so a fully Latin derivation doesn’t look impossible to me.

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by António Marques

Post by Christian Weisgerber
which points to PIE
initial *tr-. The German word is cognate with English _draw_
and points to PIE initial *dʰr-.

What would gothic have had?

Something without the High German consonant shift!
Wright's Gothic Glossary lists "dragan" (to carry, drag) and helpfully
connects it to OE dragan and OHG tragan.

That seems to put the Germanic option definitely away (on the grounds you
had already suggested).

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by António Marques
What is drehen cognate with?

Something with thr-. Etymonline says "throw".
Compare the related cognates Draht/thread.
That apparently connects with Latin terere.

As in preterite? Someone will point out that it’s a lot of IE words with
related meaning and similar form.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Tue, 24 Jul 2018 15:36:06 -0000 (UTC): António Marques

I tend to think Latin’s spelling didn’t reflect marginal phonemes, and -h-
is suspect, so a fully Latin derivation doesn’t look impossible to me.

(Abstracted from an Interlingua dictionary, using
http://rudhar.com/cgi-bin/cgi-grep.cgi?cerca=^[a-z]%2B[aeiouy]h[aeiouy]&ianl=1
):

abstrahere
nihil
anteheri
apprehender
comprehender
attraher
cohorte
extraher
incoherente
lahar
prehensile
prehension
prohiber
trihedre
vehemente
vehicular

It's rare, but there.

[António Marques]

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Tue, 24 Jul 2018 15:36:06 -0000 (UTC): António Marques

I tend to think Latin’s spelling didn’t reflect marginal phonemes, and -h-
is suspect, so a fully Latin derivation doesn’t look impossible to me.

(Abstracted from an Interlingua dictionary, using
http://rudhar.com/cgi-bin/cgi-grep.cgi?cerca=^[a-z]%2B[aeiouy]h[aeiouy]&ianl=1
abstrahere
nihil
anteheri
apprehender
comprehender
attraher
cohorte
extraher
incoherente
lahar
prehensile
prehension
prohiber
trihedre
vehemente
vehicular
It's rare, but there.

? What I’m saying is that some of those are /h/, some others (possibly the
one in trahere) are something else.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Wed, 25 Jul 2018 11:52:15 -0000 (UTC): António Marques

Post by Ruud Harmsen
abstrahere
nihil
anteheri
apprehender
comprehender
attraher
cohorte
extraher
incoherente
lahar
prehensile
prehension
prohiber
trihedre
vehemente
vehicular
It's rare, but there.

? What I’m saying is that some of those are /h/, some others (possibly the
one in trahere) are something else.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nihil#Pronunciation_2
Nikil for nihil in Ecclesiastical Latin. Because most speakers of that
kind of Latin spoke a Romance language in daily life, which didn't
have /h/, let alone between vowels in the middle of a word?

[António Marques]

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Wed, 25 Jul 2018 11:52:15 -0000 (UTC): António Marques

Post by Ruud Harmsen
abstrahere
nihil
anteheri
apprehender
comprehender
attraher
cohorte
extraher
incoherente
lahar
prehensile
prehension
prohiber
trihedre
vehemente
vehicular
It's rare, but there.

? What I’m saying is that some of those are /h/, some others (possibly the
one in trahere) are something else.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nihil#Pronunciation_2
Nikil for nihil in Ecclesiastical Latin. Because most speakers of that
kind of Latin spoke a Romance language in daily life, which didn't
have /h/, let alone between vowels in the middle of a word?

As I’ve said from the onset, I suspect Latin orthography left some marginal
phonemes unrepresented. I find some -h-, -c and -m suspicious. In many
cases they were what they look like, in others I think they stood for other
things.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Tue, 24 Jul 2018 11:50:28 -0000 (UTC): António Marques

I’m not sure. It looks as if it was from Latin *tracere and even then quite
irregular (trahere of course has the modern reflex (-)trair, but that’s
learned).

Trahere. In Spanish they lost that h (traer) and in Portuguese some of
the friction resurfaces as a z trazer.

[António Marques]

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Tue, 24 Jul 2018 11:50:28 -0000 (UTC): António Marques

I’m not sure. It looks as if it was from Latin *tracere and even then quite
irregular (trahere of course has the modern reflex (-)trair, but that’s
learned).

Trahere. In Spanish they lost that h (traer) and in Portuguese some of
the friction resurfaces as a z trazer.

Nope. *tracere.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Wed, 25 Jul 2018 11:52:14 -0000 (UTC): António Marques

Post by António Marques

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Tue, 24 Jul 2018 11:50:28 -0000 (UTC): António Marques

I?m not sure. It looks as if it was from Latin *tracere and even then quite
irregular (trahere of course has the modern reflex (-)trair, but that?s
learned).

Trahere. In Spanish they lost that h (traer) and in Portuguese some of
the friction resurfaces as a z trazer.

Nope. *tracere.

https://www.infopedia.pt/dicionarios/lingua-portuguesa/trazer
<http://dle.rae.es/?id=aE26oeU|aE2JYRT>

[António Marques]

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Wed, 25 Jul 2018 11:52:14 -0000 (UTC): António Marques

Post by António Marques

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Tue, 24 Jul 2018 11:50:28 -0000 (UTC): António Marques

I?m not sure. It looks as if it was from Latin *tracere and even then quite
irregular (trahere of course has the modern reflex (-)trair, but that?s
learned).

Trahere. In Spanish they lost that h (traer) and in Portuguese some of
the friction resurfaces as a z trazer.

Nope. *tracere.

https://www.infopedia.pt/dicionarios/lingua-portuguesa/trazer
<http://dle.rae.es/?id=aE26oeU|aE2JYRT>

What do you expect to show by repeating the obvious, known to everyone, yet
inadequate answer?

[Ruud Harmsen]

Tue, 24 Jul 2018 11:50:28 -0000 (UTC): António Marques

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by Ruud Harmsen
By the way, Portuguese "trago" (I carry) IS cognate with German "ich
trage". Not by the look of it, but from careful analysis of known
FACTS.

Color me skeptical.
The Portuguese word is from Latin _trahere_

I’m not sure. It looks as if it was from Latin *tracere and even then quite
irregular (trahere of course has the modern reflex (-)trair, but that’s
learned).
It has a /trak/ /trows/ root alternance, just where haver has /av/ /owv/.
It could conceivably have been some interference between trahere and
tragen.

Post by Christian Weisgerber
which points to PIE
initial *tr-. The German word is cognate with English _draw_
and points to PIE initial *d?r-.

What would gothic have had?
What is drehen cognate with?

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dragen#Etymology
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/dragan%C4%85

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/draaien#Etymology
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/drehen#Etymology
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/%C3%BEr%C4%93an%C4%85

A completely different word.

Gothic https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dragan#Gothic = carry.
Draaien/drehen is not attested in Gothic or not entered in Wiktionary.

English:
dragen ~ draw
draaien ~ throw
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/%C3%BEr%C4%93an%C4%85#Descendants

[Daud Deden]

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Tue, 24 Jul 2018 11:50:28 -0000 (UTC): António Marques

Post by António Marques

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by Ruud Harmsen
By the way, Portuguese "trago" (I carry) IS cognate with German "ich
trage". Not by the look of it, but from careful analysis of known
FACTS.

Color me skeptical.
The Portuguese word is from Latin _trahere_

I’m not sure. It looks as if it was from Latin *tracere and even then quite
irregular (trahere of course has the modern reflex (-)trair, but that’s
learned).
It has a /trak/ /trows/ root alternance, just where haver has /av/ /owv/.
It could conceivably have been some interference between trahere and
tragen.

Post by Christian Weisgerber
which points to PIE
initial *tr-. The German word is cognate with English _draw_
and points to PIE initial *d?r-.

What would gothic have had?
What is drehen cognate with?

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dragen#Etymology
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/dragan%C4%85
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/draaien#Etymology
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/drehen#Etymology
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/%C3%BEr%C4%93an%C4%85
A completely different word.
Gothic https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dragan#Gothic = carry.
Draaien/drehen is not attested in Gothic or not entered in Wiktionary.
dragen ~ draw
draaien ~ throw
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/%C3%BEr%C4%93an%C4%85#Descendants
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

1st dra.w the bow/atlatl/breath(blowgun),
2nd thro.w/launch the arrow/dart.

tla or dra referred to the darts/shooting sparks/tongues of flame of fire or firing a weapon.
***@Dayak: needle/dart
***@OEnglish?: needlework

[Ruud Harmsen]

Tue, 24 Jul 2018 09:37:28 -0000 (UTC): Christian Weisgerber

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by Ruud Harmsen
By the way, Portuguese "trago" (I carry) IS cognate with German "ich
trage". Not by the look of it, but from careful analysis of known
FACTS.

Color me skeptical.
The Portuguese word is from Latin _trahere_ which points to PIE
initial *tr-. The German word is cognate with English _draw_
and points to PIE initial *d?r-.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dragen#Etymology
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/dragan%C4%85
From Proto-Indo-European *d?re??- (“pull, draw, drag”).

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/traho#Latin
From Proto-Indo-European *trag?- (“to draw, drag”) or
Proto-Indo-European *d?reg?-.

Oops, tiny difference indeed: both IE words are dhregh, but the one
that the Germanic words derive from has an acute over the g. I must
have overlooked that years ago.

What does such an acute even mean?
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/traho#Latin
Palatal versus plain dorsal.

So you are right and I was wrong!

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Tue, 24 Jul 2018 09:37:28 -0000 (UTC): Christian Weisgerber

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by Ruud Harmsen
By the way, Portuguese "trago" (I carry) IS cognate with German "ich
trage". Not by the look of it, but from careful analysis of known
FACTS.

Color me skeptical.
The Portuguese word is from Latin _trahere_ which points to PIE
initial *tr-. The German word is cognate with English _draw_
and points to PIE initial *d?r-.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dragen#Etymology
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/dragan%C4%85
From Proto-Indo-European *d?re??- (“pull, draw, drag”).
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/traho#Latin
From Proto-Indo-European *trag?- (“to draw, drag”) or
Proto-Indo-European *d?reg?-.
Oops, tiny difference indeed: both IE words are dhregh, but the one
that the Germanic words derive from has an acute over the g. I must
have overlooked that years ago.
What does such an acute even mean?
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/traho#Latin
Palatal versus plain dorsal.
So you are right and I was wrong!

Though some, including Lehmann, disputed setting up a separate palatal
series, and you may have used a source adhering to that view.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Post by Ruud Harmsen
What does such an acute even mean?
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/traho#Latin

Wrong link, I meant this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_phonology#Consonants

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Palatal versus plain dorsal.

[Christian Weisgerber]

Post by Ruud Harmsen
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/dragan%C4%85
From Proto-Indo-European *d?re??- (“pull, draw, drag”).
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/traho#Latin
From Proto-Indo-European *trag?- (“to draw, drag”) or
Proto-Indo-European *d?reg?-.

I don't see how you could get Latin tr- from PIE *dʰr-.
I suspect the origin of this is Etymonline, or they share a common
source, which says something subtely different:

https://www.etymonline.com/word/tract
from PIE root *tragh- [...] perhaps with a variant form *dhragh-

This appears to be one of these cases where we can reconstruct two
different PIE roots that appear to have the same meaning.

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Oops, tiny difference indeed: both IE words are dhregh, but the one
that the Germanic words derive from has an acute over the g. I must
have overlooked that years ago.

That may be an omission in one of the sources. Also, you need a
cognate in a satem language to tell palato-velars and plain velars
appart, since they merged in the centum languages.

[Daud Deden]

Showing results for etymology of gadzooks

gad·zooks
Origin

late 17th century: alteration of God's hooks, i.e., the nails by which Jesus Christ was fastened to the cross; see Gad2.

Quora › What-is-the-origin-of-the-word-...
Feb 4, 2017 · It is believed to be a corruption of “By God's Hooks”, where hooks is in turn a slang term for hands.

[António Marques]

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Mon, 23 Jul 2018 00:38:01 -0700 (PDT): Franz Gnaedinger

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
PIE has a problem in that
respect, unable of bringing together Latin deus and Greek theos, Latin habere
and German haben English have, or the six homonyms *bher-.

English 'to have' corresponds to Latin capere, not habere.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/have#Etymology_1
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/habeo#Etymology
"English have is not a cognate. "
Why are such simple things, based on simple sound changes, attested by
loads of evidence, so hard to accept for you?
By the way, Portuguese "trago" (I carry) IS cognate with German "ich
trage". Not by the look of it, but from careful analysis of known
FACTS.

He’s, in German terminology, uncarryable.

[Franz Gnaedinger]

Post by António Marques
He’s, in German terminology, uncarryable.

If every bit of my knowledged wighed one ounce you could not possibly carry me.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Mon, 23 Jul 2018 00:38:01 -0700 (PDT): Franz Gnaedinger

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
The ultra-rigid
application of the alleged sound laws (that are but rules, outward approxi-
mations to the physiology and neurology of speaking, a shadow of the real
thing, as it were) hinders people from recognizing wider connections between
words. I wonder whether the comparative method was easily accepted five
hundred years ago - 'What, our Homer and Virgil spoke languages that are
related to the stutterings of them Indian half-monkeys?' -

Ah, a racist undertone.

[Franz Gnaedinger]

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Ah, a racist undertone.

I formulate the prossible or even probable reaction to the first insights
of the comparative method in academe. We have a lot of records as to how
people received revolutionary ideas in the natural sciences, but nothing
about scholars commenting to the findings of the comparative linguists
in the early years. As if a veil of silence had been spread over the
reception of that method. A reaction that was heavily racist, I fear.

[Daud Deden]

Deuce/Zwei, Joss/Dios~Deus/Zeus

[Franz Gnaedinger]

Post by Daud Deden
Deuce/Zwei, Joss/Dios~Deus/Zeus

Are you still adhering to that ***@insain ***@ektoplasm of Carlos L.?
Deus and Zeus are related in PIE, but not in my opinion. Latin deus and Greek
theos and many more divine names and other words derive from DhAG meaning
able, good in the sense of able, whereas Zeus, erronously considered the only
easy name in the Greek pantheon, derives from TYR meaning to overcome in the
double sense of rule and give, TYR emphatic Middle Helladic Sseyr (Phaistos
Disc as deciphered by Derk Ohlenroth) Doric Sseus (Wilhelm Larfeld) Homeric
Zeus, and, via French Sieur Monsieur and English Sire Sir and German Herr
a title for every man.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Wed, 25 Jul 2018 00:39:34 -0700 (PDT): Franz Gnaedinger

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
Deus and Zeus are related in PIE,

No they're not:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/deus#Etymology_2
"Despite its superficial similarity in form and meaning, the word is
not related to Ancient Greek ?e?? (theós); the two come from different
roots.[2]"

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%B8%CE%B5%CF%8C%CF%82#Ancient_Greek
"Despite its superficial similarity in form and meaning, the word is
not related to Latin deus; the two come from different roots."

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Zeus#Etymology
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%96%CE%B5%CF%8D%CF%82#Ancient_Greek
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Hellenic/dzeus
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/dy%E1%B8%97ws
" sky, heaven
sky god"

So, in fact, yes, Deus and Zeus ARE cognate, but both are not with
Theos.

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
but not in my opinion.

Opinion is not science.

[Daud Deden]

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Wed, 25 Jul 2018 00:39:34 -0700 (PDT): Franz Gnaedinger

When I claimed "DZeus", Carlos L. disagreed. (How old is 'gadzooks!')? Recent slang?

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
Deus and Zeus are related in PIE,

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/deus#Etymology_2
"Despite its superficial similarity in form and meaning, the word is
not related to Ancient Greek ?e?? (theós); the two come from different
roots.[2]"
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%B8%CE%B5%CF%8C%CF%82#Ancient_Greek
"Despite its superficial similarity in form and meaning, the word is
not related to Latin deus; the two come from different roots."
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Zeus#Etymology
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%96%CE%B5%CF%8D%CF%82#Ancient_Greek
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Hellenic/dzeus
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/dy%E1%B8%97ws
" sky, heaven
sky god"
So, in fact, yes, Deus and Zeus ARE cognate, but both are not with
Theos.

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
but not in my opinion.

Opinion is not science.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

Correct. DZeus. Dyaus. Thiops. Zion. Tian. Cheyenne. Cyan. Xyamb(uatla) sky (holy/water/order). Possibly the blue & white tzitzit sacred tassels worn by Hebrew priests connected to this, as well as the modern blue star of David emblem.

[Franz Gnaedinger]

Post by Ruud Harmsen
So, in fact, yes, Deus and Zeus ARE cognate, but both are not with
Theos.

You can only recognize cognates on the same twig of the language tree,
whereas I (also) care about what I call deep cognates on different twigs
but on the same branch.

[Franz Gnaedinger]

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
You can only recognize cognates on the same twig of the language tree,
whereas I (also) care about what I call deep cognates on different twigs
but on the same branch.

Google hides the last line of this very short reply, so I say it again:
classical cognates are like leaves on the same twig of the language tree,
and what I call deep cognates are like leaves on different twigs but on
the same branch. You can only recognize classical cognates but ignore
deep cognates for which I (also) care. The alledged sound laws, actually
sound rules, need widening in the light of Magdalenian.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Mon, 23 Jul 2018 23:47:00 -0700 (PDT): Franz Gnaedinger

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
of the comparative method in academe.

What is academe?

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/academe

Sense 3, poetic.

[Daud Deden]

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Sat, 21 Jul 2018 00:38:21 -0700 (PDT): Franz Gnaedinger

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
When you look at
language evolution and development ('evodevo' in biological lingo) the
original K branched into various different consonants: K(ate) c(ottage)
sh(ed) h(ut).

Over about 2500 years, yes. And longer than that? We know some, using
evidence from Avestan, Sanskrit etcetera. Perhaps 4000 or 6000 years.
Beyond that: WE JUST DON'T KNOW. There is no data.
Did you ever read about Hungarian and Finnish and the few languages in
that (or those? not all scholar even agree) same language family? Did
you see how hard it is to distinghuish genetic development from old
loans?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Uralic_language
7 thousand to 2 thousand years ago, scientists do not agree.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finno-Ugric_languages#Origins
"The validity of Finno-Ugric as a genetic grouping is under challenge,
[...]"
If this is already so difficult, while many living languages still
exist so they can be studied, how can you make any statements about a
hypothetical language of TWELVE thousand years ago?

THE FURTHER BACK YOU GO, THE MORE SIMILAR THE WORDS!!!!

Exactly the same in zoology, botany and any study of evolving systems.

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
branched into various different consonants: K(ate) c(ottage)
sh(ed) h(ut).

The k of Kate and the c of cottage is the same sound. The difference
of spelling only.

K seems to derive from:
A. Xy-- (sky/skin)
B. --NGDua-- (dwell/shell/skel)
C. --tlachya (leaky, galact)
among others...

Post by Ruud Harmsen
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/house#Etymology_1
Note the word "possibly".
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/shed#Etymology_1
A completely distinct etymology.

Twigs are completely different, but may originate from the exact same branch (which was a twig a few years before)

Post by Ruud Harmsen
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

[Daud Deden]

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
In my Magdalenian thread I wrote these lines
KOD DhAG accounts for Hebrew qodash modern kadosh 'holy' Arabic mu'qaddas
'sanctified, holy, consecrated' Turkish mukaddas 'holy (of places)' Persian
mogaddes 'holy, sanctified, sanctuaries' and has a parallel in Italian casa
di Dio 'house of God' for a church. Further derivatives of KOD are for example
Hebrew xasa (chasa) 'find protection' and 'setér 'hidden place, secret'.
whereupon Ruud Harmsen replied (quote)
Which x or ch is that? Anyway, it's not a q. Q was already distinct in
Proto-Semitic and Proto-whatsthenewofthatwiderlanguagefamily. If there
1) unknown to us,
2) highly unlikely.
So what is your evidence that such a connection has existed?
(end of quote)
I don't understand the question. My reconstruction of KOD for tent, hut,
dates from 2006 and was inspired by a comment by Douglas G. Kilday.
The word has very many derivatives, among them cottage, hut, shed,
German Kate 'hut' and Hütte 'hut', Latin casa English house German Haus,
French château English castle, French cité English city, then also hat
as casing of the head, coat as casing of the body, and many many more
examples I gave over the years, in fact it is a most basic word in
hypothetical Magdalenian. This year I added a few more examples from
languages in Asia Minor, especially Hebrew and Arabic. Those languages,
my claim, evolved from the Late Magdalenian spoken in the region of
the Göbekli Tepe 12,000 years ago, and were blended with Afroasiatic
languages. A couple of words are still clearly recognizeable, especially
in the regligious context, as I explained many times. When you look at
language evolution and development ('evodevo' in biological lingo) the
original K branched into various different consonants: K(ate) c(ottage)
sh(ed) h(ut). You have to learn to look at language the way it actually
evolved over time: along the flow of time, not against it.

I've never heard of kate as hut. Carlos L. suggested ecatl/Hecate as wind deity, not impossibly linked to tipis of the plains-steppe N.D.L.a.Kota. I do not accept Franz's Kota as earlier than xyuambuatla/shade-hut-coat etc., a minor yet important distinction.

[Daud Deden]

Post by Daud Deden

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
In my Magdalenian thread I wrote these lines
KOD DhAG accounts for Hebrew qodash modern kadosh 'holy' Arabic mu'qaddas
'sanctified, holy, consecrated' Turkish mukaddas 'holy (of places)' Persian
mogaddes 'holy, sanctified, sanctuaries' and has a parallel in Italian casa
di Dio 'house of God' for a church. Further derivatives of KOD are for example
Hebrew xasa (chasa) 'find protection' and 'setér 'hidden place, secret'.
whereupon Ruud Harmsen replied (quote)
Which x or ch is that? Anyway, it's not a q. Q was already distinct in
Proto-Semitic and Proto-whatsthenewofthatwiderlanguagefamily. If there
1) unknown to us,
2) highly unlikely.
So what is your evidence that such a connection has existed?
(end of quote)
I don't understand the question. My reconstruction of KOD for tent, hut,
dates from 2006 and was inspired by a comment by Douglas G. Kilday.
The word has very many derivatives, among them cottage, hut, shed,
German Kate 'hut' and Hütte 'hut', Latin casa English house German Haus,
French château English castle, French cité English city, then also hat
as casing of the head, coat as casing of the body, and many many more
examples I gave over the years, in fact it is a most basic word in
hypothetical Magdalenian. This year I added a few more examples from
languages in Asia Minor, especially Hebrew and Arabic. Those languages,
my claim, evolved from the Late Magdalenian spoken in the region of
the Göbekli Tepe 12,000 years ago, and were blended with Afroasiatic
languages. A couple of words are still clearly recognizeable, especially
in the regligious context, as I explained many times. When you look at
language evolution and development ('evodevo' in biological lingo) the
original K branched into various different consonants: K(ate) c(ottage)
sh(ed) h(ut). You have to learn to look at language the way it actually
evolved over time: along the flow of time, not against it.

I've never heard of kate as hut. Carlos L. suggested ecatl/Hecate as wind deity, not impossibly linked to tipis of the plains-steppe N.D.L.a.Kota. I do not accept Franz's Kota as earlier than xyuambuatla/shade-hut-coat etc., a minor yet important distinction.

I meant Franz's KOD.

[Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski]

Post by Daud Deden
I've never heard of kate as hut.

Sure you haven't, because you are ignorant and stupid and don't know languages. Such as German, where Kate indeed can mean "hut".

Post by Daud Deden
Carlos L. suggested ecatl/Hecate as wind deity,

Eecatl with an audible -h- between the two e's is Classical Nahuatl for wind. Not "wind deity", but simply wind. Go learn real languages, idiot.

[Daud Deden]

Post by Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski

Post by Daud Deden
I've never heard of kate as hut.

Sure you haven't, because you are ignorant and stupid and don't know languages. Such as German, where Kate indeed can mean "hut".

Post by Daud Deden
Carlos L. suggested ecatl/Hecate as wind deity,

Eecatl with an audible -h- between the two e's is Classical Nahuatl for wind. Not "wind deity", but simply wind.

Carlos L. referred to it (ehecatl) as a deified feature of nature, with Hecate a variant.

Go learn real languages, idiot.

Why? So I can talk out of my ass, like you do? Nein danke, comrade, itu lain betul je.

[Daud Deden]

Post by Daud Deden

Post by Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski

Post by Daud Deden
I've never heard of kate as hut.

Sure you haven't, because you are ignorant and stupid and don't know languages. Such as German, where Kate indeed can mean "hut".

Post by Daud Deden
Carlos L. suggested ecatl/Hecate as wind deity,

Eecatl with an audible -h- between the two e's is Classical Nahuatl for wind. Not "wind deity", but simply wind.

Carlos L. referred to it (ehecatl) as a deified feature of nature, with Hecate a variant.
Go learn real languages, idiot.
Why? So I can talk out of my ass, like you do? Nein danke, comrade, itu lain betul je.

---
Kod technically did not mean tent, it meant coat, ***@Finnish, though it was used to name the tent. Xyua(mb)uatl.

[Franz Gnaedinger]

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
In my Magdalenian thread I wrote these lines
KOD DhAG accounts for Hebrew qodash modern kadosh 'holy' Arabic mu'qaddas
'sanctified, holy, consecrated' Turkish mukaddas 'holy (of places)' Persian
mogaddes 'holy, sanctified, sanctuaries' and has a parallel in Italian casa
di Dio 'house of God' for a church. Further derivatives of KOD are for example
Hebrew xasa (chasa) 'find protection' and 'setér 'hidden place, secret'.
whereupon Ruud Harmsen replied (quote)
Which x or ch is that? Anyway, it's not a q. Q was already distinct in
Proto-Semitic and Proto-whatsthenewofthatwiderlanguagefamily. If there
1) unknown to us,
2) highly unlikely.
So what is your evidence that such a connection has existed?
(end of quote)
I don't understand the question. My reconstruction of KOD for tent, hut,
dates from 2006 and was inspired by a comment by Douglas G. Kilday.
The word has very many derivatives, among them cottage, hut, shed,
German Kate 'hut' and Hütte 'hut', Latin casa English house German Haus,
French château English castle, French cité English city, then also hat
as casing of the head, coat as casing of the body, and many many more
examples I gave over the years, in fact it is a most basic word in
hypothetical Magdalenian. This year I added a few more examples from
languages in Asia Minor, especially Hebrew and Arabic. Those languages,
my claim, evolved from the Late Magdalenian spoken in the region of
the Göbekli Tepe 12,000 years ago, and were blended with Afroasiatic
languages. A couple of words are still clearly recognizeable, especially
in the regligious context, as I explained many times. When you look at
language evolution and development ('evodevo' in biological lingo) the
original K branched into various different consonants: K(ate) c(ottage)
sh(ed) h(ut). You have to learn to look at language the way it actually
evolved over time: along the flow of time, not against it.

KOD for tent, hut, has further derivatives in Finnish kota 'dwelling, tent,
hut' Czech chatrc (chatrch) 'hut' and chata 'mountain hut' Avestan kata
'chamber' and hadis (hadish) 'home' Latin sedes English seat and settle
settlement Arabic qu.ada (dot marking a hamza) 'to sit' and quds 'sanctuary'
Hebrew xeder (kheder) 'chamber, Thora school, Talmud school' and xadron
(khadron) 'little chamber, chamber' Arabic hudshra (initial h choked)
'chamber' and finally Persian cador (chador) 'tent'.

Middle English has cod coth couth for hut, German Kate Kathe Hütte, Sanskrit
khada and kuti, also kota kotta for a fortress, and kotara for a cave.

Irish cod English head are words for the casing of the mind, with cognates
in German Schädel 'skull' and Hebrew kodkod 'skull' (the emphatic doubling
maybe prolonging the ancient tradition of clay-covered and sculpted skulls
from Jericho that kept back the spirit of a worthy dead).

If the head is a casing of the mind, the hood a casing of the head,
neighborhood a metaphor, abbreviated to hood in the language of hiphop.

German Schote 'husk, pod' names a small casing of plant life, consider also
English seed and German Saat 'sowing'. Schote is close to the ethnic name
Scot which might go back to fabulous early dwellings like Skara Brae that
resembles a husk or pod in the ground and was certainly part of the
collective memory.

Word branching in the wake of material progress required the splitting of
consonants, in the given case the initial K of hypothetical KOD became
k kh c ch s sh q h and a choked h in Arabic.

Magdalenian widens the limited understanding of word branching in PIE and
revives the pioneering days of the comparative method.

[Daud Deden]

Post by Franz Gnaedinger

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
In my Magdalenian thread I wrote these lines
KOD DhAG accounts for Hebrew qodash modern kadosh 'holy' Arabic mu'qaddas
'sanctified, holy, consecrated' Turkish mukaddas 'holy (of places)' Persian
mogaddes 'holy, sanctified, sanctuaries' and has a parallel in Italian casa
di Dio 'house of God' for a church. Further derivatives of KOD are for example
Hebrew xasa (chasa) 'find protection' and 'setér 'hidden place, secret'.
whereupon Ruud Harmsen replied (quote)
Which x or ch is that? Anyway, it's not a q. Q was already distinct in
Proto-Semitic and Proto-whatsthenewofthatwiderlanguagefamily. If there
1) unknown to us,
2) highly unlikely.
So what is your evidence that such a connection has existed?
(end of quote)
I don't understand the question. My reconstruction of KOD for tent, hut,
dates from 2006 and was inspired by a comment by Douglas G. Kilday.
The word has very many derivatives, among them cottage, hut, shed,
German Kate 'hut' and Hütte 'hut', Latin casa English house German Haus,
French château English castle, French cité English city, then also hat
as casing of the head, coat as casing of the body, and many many more
examples I gave over the years, in fact it is a most basic word in
hypothetical Magdalenian. This year I added a few more examples from
languages in Asia Minor, especially Hebrew and Arabic. Those languages,
my claim, evolved from the Late Magdalenian spoken in the region of
the Göbekli Tepe 12,000 years ago, and were blended with Afroasiatic
languages. A couple of words are still clearly recognizeable, especially
in the regligious context, as I explained many times. When you look at
language evolution and development ('evodevo' in biological lingo) the
original K branched into various different consonants: K(ate) c(ottage)
sh(ed) h(ut). You have to learn to look at language the way it actually
evolved over time: along the flow of time, not against it.

KOD for tent, hut, has further derivatives in Finnish kota 'dwelling, tent,
hut' Czech chatrc (chatrch) 'hut' and chata 'mountain hut' Avestan kata
'chamber' and hadis (hadish) 'home' Latin sedes English seat and settle
settlement Arabic qu.ada (dot marking a hamza) 'to sit' and quds 'sanctuary'
Hebrew xeder (kheder) 'chamber, Thora school, Talmud school' and xadron
(khadron) 'little chamber, chamber' Arabic hudshra (initial h choked)
'chamber' and finally Persian cador (chador) 'tent'.
Middle English has cod coth couth for hut, German Kate Kathe Hütte, Sanskrit
khada and kuti, also kota kotta for a fortress, and kotara for a cave.
Irish cod English head are words for the casing of the mind, with cognates
in German Schädel 'skull' and Hebrew kodkod 'skull' (the emphatic doubling
maybe prolonging the ancient tradition of clay-covered and sculpted skulls
from Jericho that kept back the spirit of a worthy dead).
If the head is a casing of the mind, the hood a casing of the head,
neighborhood a metaphor, abbreviated to hood in the language of hiphop.
German Schote 'husk, pod' names a small casing of plant life, consider also
English seed and German Saat 'sowing'. Schote is close to the ethnic name
Scot which might go back to fabulous early dwellings like Skara Brae that
resembles a husk or pod in the ground and was certainly part of the
collective memory.
Word branching in the wake of material progress required the splitting of
consonants, in the given case the initial K of hypothetical KOD became
k kh c ch s sh q h and a choked h in Arabic.
Magdalenian widens the limited understanding of word branching in PIE and
revives the pioneering days of the comparative method.

Franz, kod ~ hide ~ shield
It did refer to a tent, but that was only one application.

[Franz Gnaedinger]

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
KOD for tent, hut, has further derivatives in Finnish kota 'dwelling, tent,
hut' Czech chatrc (chatrch) 'hut' and chata 'mountain hut' Avestan kata
'chamber' and hadis (hadish) 'home' Latin sedes English seat and settle
settlement Arabic qu.ada (dot marking a hamza) 'to sit' and quds 'sanctuary'
Hebrew xeder (kheder) 'chamber, Thora school, Talmud school' and xadron
(khadron) 'little chamber, chamber' Arabic hudshra (initial h choked)
'chamber' and finally Persian cador (chador) 'tent'.
Middle English has cod coth couth for hut, German Kate Kathe Hütte, Sanskrit
khada and kuti, also kota kotta for a fortress, and kotara for a cave.
Irish cod English head are words for the casing of the mind, with cognates
in German Schädel 'skull' and Hebrew kodkod 'skull' (the emphatic doubling
maybe prolonging the ancient tradition of clay-covered and sculpted skulls
from Jericho that kept back the spirit of a worthy dead).
If the head is a casing of the mind, the hood a casing of the head,
neighborhood a metaphor, abbreviated to hood in the language of hiphop.
German Schote 'husk, pod' names a small casing of plant life, consider also
English seed and German Saat 'sowing'. Schote is close to the ethnic name
Scot which might go back to fabulous early dwellings like Skara Brae that
resembles a husk or pod in the ground and was certainly part of the
collective memory.
Word branching in the wake of material progress required the splitting of
consonants, in the given case the initial K of hypothetical KOD became
k kh c ch s sh q h and a choked h in Arabic.
Magdalenian widens the limited understanding of word branching in PIE and
revives the pioneering days of the comparative method.

Old Hebrew qdsh qodesh 'holy' is written twice on a bowl from Hazor (Yigael
Yadin) while my reliable dictionary of (Modern) Hebrew gives kadosh 'holy'.
Why is this a lie? What is the difference between the two words? They both
begin on a qoph or koph or Kof or Kuf, the nineteenth letter in the Hebrew
alphabet, numerical value 100 (one hundred). I have been accused of a lie
for the second time because I rely on Yadin and my dictionary, while my
question about the difference between qodesh 'holy' and kadosh 'holy' has
never been answered. To whom it concerns: invectives are no scientific
arguments.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Mon, 23 Jul 2018 23:57:23 -0700 (PDT): Franz Gnaedinger

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
Old Hebrew qdsh qodesh 'holy' is written twice on a bowl from Hazor (Yigael
Yadin) while my reliable dictionary of (Modern) Hebrew gives kadosh 'holy'.
Why is this a lie? What is the difference between the two words? They both
begin on a qoph or koph or Kof or Kuf, the nineteenth letter in the Hebrew
alphabet, numerical value 100 (one hundred). I have been accused of a lie
for the second time because I rely on Yadin and my dictionary, while my
question about the difference between qodesh 'holy' and kadosh 'holy' has
never been answered. To whom it concerns: invectives are no scientific
arguments.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Holy_Spirit
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%93%D7%A9
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Kadesh
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kadesh
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/kaddish
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D7%A7%D7%93%D7%99%D7%A9#Aramaic
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Quds
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeruzalem

All from the same root.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Franz Gnaedinger

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
KOD for tent, hut, has further derivatives in Finnish kota 'dwelling, tent,
hut' Czech chatrc (chatrch) 'hut' and chata 'mountain hut' Avestan kata
'chamber' and hadis (hadish) 'home' Latin sedes English seat and settle
settlement Arabic qu.ada (dot marking a hamza) 'to sit' and quds 'sanctuary'
Hebrew xeder (kheder) 'chamber, Thora school, Talmud school' and xadron
(khadron) 'little chamber, chamber' Arabic hudshra (initial h choked)
'chamber' and finally Persian cador (chador) 'tent'.
Middle English has cod coth couth for hut, German Kate Kathe Hütte, Sanskrit
khada and kuti, also kota kotta for a fortress, and kotara for a cave.
Irish cod English head are words for the casing of the mind, with cognates
in German Schädel 'skull' and Hebrew kodkod 'skull' (the emphatic doubling
maybe prolonging the ancient tradition of clay-covered and sculpted skulls
from Jericho that kept back the spirit of a worthy dead).
If the head is a casing of the mind, the hood a casing of the head,
neighborhood a metaphor, abbreviated to hood in the language of hiphop.
German Schote 'husk, pod' names a small casing of plant life, consider also
English seed and German Saat 'sowing'. Schote is close to the ethnic name
Scot which might go back to fabulous early dwellings like Skara Brae that
resembles a husk or pod in the ground and was certainly part of the
collective memory.
Word branching in the wake of material progress required the splitting of
consonants, in the given case the initial K of hypothetical KOD became
k kh c ch s sh q h and a choked h in Arabic.
Magdalenian widens the limited understanding of word branching in PIE and
revives the pioneering days of the comparative method.

Old Hebrew qdsh qodesh 'holy' is written twice on a bowl from Hazor (Yigael
Yadin) while my reliable dictionary of (Modern) Hebrew gives kadosh 'holy'.
Why is this a lie?

Old Hebrew and Modern Hebrew are different languages, not even connected
by 3000 years of continuous development. (If they were, they would be at
least as different from each other as Old Aramaic is from Mandaic.)

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
What is the difference between the two words? They both
begin on a qoph or koph or Kof or Kuf, the nineteenth letter in the Hebrew
alphabet, numerical value 100 (one hundred).

They are different derivations from the same root. Why are you unable to
find both "kodesh" and "kadosh" in your Modern Hebrew dictionary? They
are spelled the same, unless one or the other has been given an optional
Waw as a _mater lectionis_ for the /o/, but they should be listed on the
same page and will be distinguished by the differing vowel points with
which they are provided.

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
I have been accused of a lie
for the second time because I rely on Yadin and my dictionary, while my
question about the difference between qodesh 'holy' and kadosh 'holy' has
never been answered. To whom it concerns: invectives are no scientific
arguments.

Since you now say you have a Modern Hebrew dictionary, you should be able
to look up the two words for yourself.

Or, you could look in a grammar (of either language) and discover the
uses of the two vowel patterns _a_o_ and _o_e_.

[Franz Gnaedinger]

Post by Peter T. Daniels
They are different derivations from the same root. Why are you unable to
find both "kodesh" and "kadosh" in your Modern Hebrew dictionary? They
are spelled the same, unless one or the other has been given an optional
Waw as a _mater lectionis_ for the /o/, but they should be listed on the
same page and will be distinguished by the differing vowel points with
which they are provided.

Old Hebrew qdsh qodesh 'holy' is written twice on a bowl from Hazor,
while my dictionary of (Modern) Hebrew offers the following words

kadosh 'holy (adjective) and Saint'

'kodesh 'holiness, something or someone holy' (with an initial diacritic
' that is not explained in my dictionary)

kidush 'sanctification, consecration, saying the kadush over wine,
also to marry someone to someone

kdusha '(your) Holiness'

kadesh 'prostitute (in the cult of Baal)'

Old Hebrew qodesh 'holy' is an adjective, therefore I chose the adjective
kodash 'holy' as modern counterpart. In my opinion all the above words
- and the Arabic words around the concept of holy - derive from the same
compound KOD DhAG

KOD meaning tent, hut, also shrine, sanctuary, temple

DhAG meaning able, good in the sense of able, accounting for Greek theos
Latin deus and Sumerian dingir, also for the name of the supreme Celtic
god Dagda, the good god in the sense of the able god (Barry Cunliffe),
from the emphatic doubling DhAG DhAG able able

The various derivatives of KOD DhAG in Hebrew and Arabic name connections
to the shrine or sanctuary or temple of the supreme deity. By the way,
prostitutes were also found in Greek temples which also served as banks
(cf. Jesus throwing the money changers out of the temple at Jerusalem).

Classical word roots have no place in the Magdalenian model where the
adequate metaphor is branching: words or compounds are like leaves growing
on twiglets that grow on twigs that grow on small branches that grow on big
branches. Classical cognates are like leaves on the same twig, and what I
call _deep cognates_ are like leaves growing on different twigs but on the
same branch.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Mon, 23 Jul 2018 00:08:02 -0700 (PDT): Franz Gnaedinger

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
KOD for tent, hut, has further derivatives in Finnish kota 'dwelling, tent,
hut' Czech chatrc (chatrch) 'hut' and chata 'mountain hut' Avestan kata
'chamber' and hadis (hadish) 'home' Latin sedes English seat and settle
settlement Arabic qu.ada (dot marking a hamza) 'to sit' and quds 'sanctuary'
Hebrew xeder (kheder) 'chamber, Thora school, Talmud school' and xadron
(khadron) 'little chamber, chamber' Arabic hudshra (initial h choked)
'chamber' and finally Persian cador (chador) 'tent'.

Again, you haphazardly mix words from various unrelated language
families and different periods, without explaining why the superficial
similarities would have any relevance. And you totally disregard the
phonemics of Semitic languages.

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
(initial h choked)

What does that mean?

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
hudshra

You apparently transformed a German source (German can't write the
sound of English 'Jack', so uses the strange sequence dsch) to fake
English (sch->sh). The sound is a single phoneme in Arabic, usually
transscribed <j>, which phonetic rendering as [dZ], [Z] or [g],
depending on region and period.

[Franz Gnaedinger]

Post by Ruud Harmsen
What does that mean?

My dictionary gives 'mit gepresster Stimme' as 'with a choked voice',
while my Arabic dictionary gives the '... h' as 'gepresstes h' which I would
render as 'pressed h' but considering the 'choked voice' I gave a 'choked h'.
Can you tell me the correct term?

[Yusuf B Gursey]

Post by Franz Gnaedinger

Post by Ruud Harmsen
What does that mean?

My dictionary gives 'mit gepresster Stimme' as 'with a choked voice',
while my Arabic dictionary gives the '... h' as 'gepresstes h' which I would
render as 'pressed h' but considering the 'choked voice' I gave a 'choked h'.
Can you tell me the correct term?

The technical term is unvoiced pharyngeal fricative ħ

[Franz Gnaedinger]

Post by Yusuf B Gursey
The technical term is unvoiced pharyngeal fricative ħ

Thank you, but is there no term in common language, like "gepresstes h"
in German?

[Ruud Harmsen]

Wed, 25 Jul 2018 00:22:20 -0700 (PDT): Franz Gnaedinger

Post by Franz Gnaedinger

Post by Ruud Harmsen
What does that mean?

My dictionary gives 'mit gepresster Stimme' as 'with a choked voice',
while my Arabic dictionary gives the '... h' as 'gepresstes h' which I would
render as 'pressed h' but considering the 'choked voice' I gave a 'choked h'.
Can you tell me the correct term?

No, because I don't know which of H, h, kh, gh or `ain we are talking
about. Show me the word in Arabic script and it's immediately clear.

[Franz Gnaedinger]

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Again, you haphazardly mix words from various unrelated language
families and different periods, without explaining why the superficial
similarities would have any relevance. And you totally disregard the
phonemics of Semitic languages.

Not haphazardly, Magdalenian is based on the physiology and neurology of
speaking, on the collective memory of humankind, on archaeology and the
visual language of cave art and rock art and mobile art, on early literature
and on the inherent wisdom of story telling. A multi-dimensional approach.
Once again, sound laws are but rules, outward approximations to the physiology
and neurology of speaking, a shadow of the real thing, as it were. PIE has
no idea of early words, considers almost every word as having a root of its
own, whereas Magdalenian sees words as leaves on twiglets, twiglets growing
from twigs, twigs from small branches, and small branches from big branches.
KOD meaning tent, hut, is a big branch on the language tree. Derivatives
of that word may and do grow on different twigs and twiglets, but still on
the same branch. You can only see the smallest of twiglets, rarely a twig,
never a small or even a big branch. The problem of PIE in our days is the
ultra-rigid application of the alleged sound laws that are but rules and
have a limited range of validity. But owners of a monopole defend their
position of power to the proverbial blood. Happens with PIE in our time.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Mon, 23 Jul 2018 00:08:02 -0700 (PDT): Franz Gnaedinger

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
Middle English has cod coth couth for hut, German Kate Kathe Hütte

A German word with initial k cannot be cognate with a word with
initial h, unless loanwords are at play. Same with English <c> and
<h>.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Mon, 23 Jul 2018 00:08:02 -0700 (PDT): Franz Gnaedinger

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
German Kate Kathe Hütte,

Duden:
"aus dem Niederdeutschen, Nebenform von: Kote < mittelniederdeutsch
kote, ursprünglich = Höhle, Loch, mit Flechtwerk abgedeckte Wohngrube"

So it's cognate with Dutch 'kot', which in the Netherlands is a place
where pigs dwell (varkenskot), and in Belgium students ("op kot
wonen", live in a student's room.

https://nl.wiktionary.org/wiki/kot
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/kot#Etymology

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
Middle English has cod coth couth for hut

Cognate with 'cot' and 'cote', not 'cod', says Wiktionary.

[Franz Gnaedinger]

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Cognate with 'cot' and 'cote', not 'cod', says Wiktionary.

Wiki piki licky dicky. Go to a good university library and look up dictionaries
of Middle English.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Franz Gnaedinger

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Cognate with 'cot' and 'cote', not 'cod', says Wiktionary.

Wiki piki licky dicky. Go to a good university library and look up dictionaries
of Middle English.

I thought Franz didn't approve of sex spam: "licky dicky", indeed. Time
for another open letter to the Google Company.

[Franz Gnaedinger]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I thought Franz didn't approve of sex spam: "licky dicky", indeed. Time
for another open letter to the Google Company.

Too many people are L the D of W. Wikipedia is fine, actually very fine for
a quick first information, but then you must delve deeper. Otherwise Wikipedia
and consorts become the source of a global wave of iStupidity.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

Post by Franz Gnaedinger

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
In my Magdalenian thread I wrote these lines
KOD DhAG accounts for Hebrew qodash modern kadosh 'holy' Arabic mu'qaddas
'sanctified, holy, consecrated' Turkish mukaddas 'holy (of places)' Persian
mogaddes 'holy, sanctified, sanctuaries' and has a parallel in Italian casa
di Dio 'house of God' for a church. Further derivatives of KOD are for example
Hebrew xasa (chasa) 'find protection' and 'setér 'hidden place, secret'.
whereupon Ruud Harmsen replied (quote)
Which x or ch is that? Anyway, it's not a q. Q was already distinct in
Proto-Semitic and Proto-whatsthenewofthatwiderlanguagefamily. If there
1) unknown to us,
2) highly unlikely.
So what is your evidence that such a connection has existed?
(end of quote)
I don't understand the question. My reconstruction of KOD for tent, hut,
dates from 2006 and was inspired by a comment by Douglas G. Kilday.
The word has very many derivatives, among them cottage, hut, shed,
German Kate 'hut' and Hütte 'hut', Latin casa English house German Haus,
French château English castle, French cité English city, then also hat
as casing of the head, coat as casing of the body, and many many more
examples I gave over the years, in fact it is a most basic word in
hypothetical Magdalenian. This year I added a few more examples from
languages in Asia Minor, especially Hebrew and Arabic. Those languages,
my claim, evolved from the Late Magdalenian spoken in the region of
the Göbekli Tepe 12,000 years ago, and were blended with Afroasiatic
languages. A couple of words are still clearly recognizeable, especially
in the regligious context, as I explained many times. When you look at
language evolution and development ('evodevo' in biological lingo) the
original K branched into various different consonants: K(ate) c(ottage)
sh(ed) h(ut). You have to learn to look at language the way it actually
evolved over time: along the flow of time, not against it.

KOD for tent, hut, has further derivatives in Finnish kota 'dwelling, tent,
hut' Czech chatrc (chatrch) 'hut' and chata 'mountain hut' Avestan kata
'chamber' and hadis (hadish) 'home' Latin sedes English seat and settle
settlement Arabic qu.ada (dot marking a hamza) 'to sit' and quds 'sanctuary'
Hebrew xeder (kheder) 'chamber, Thora school, Talmud school' and xadron
(khadron) 'little chamber, chamber' Arabic hudshra (initial h choked)
'chamber' and finally Persian cador (chador) 'tent'.
Middle English has cod coth couth for hut, German Kate Kathe Hütte, Sanskrit
khada and kuti, also kota kotta for a fortress, and kotara for a cave.
Irish cod English head are words for the casing of the mind, with cognates
in German Schädel 'skull' and Hebrew kodkod 'skull' (the emphatic doubling
maybe prolonging the ancient tradition of clay-covered and sculpted skulls
from Jericho that kept back the spirit of a worthy dead).
If the head is a casing of the mind, the hood a casing of the head,
neighborhood a metaphor, abbreviated to hood in the language of hiphop.
German Schote 'husk, pod' names a small casing of plant life, consider also
English seed and German Saat 'sowing'. Schote is close to the ethnic name
Scot which might go back to fabulous early dwellings like Skara Brae that
resembles a husk or pod in the ground and was certainly part of the
collective memory.
Word branching in the wake of material progress required the splitting of
consonants, in the given case the initial K of hypothetical KOD became
k kh c ch s sh q h and a choked h in Arabic.

ħujrah (j affricate) < ħugrah

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
Magdalenian widens the limited understanding of word branching in PIE and
revives the pioneering days of the comparative method.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

Post by Franz Gnaedinger

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
In my Magdalenian thread I wrote these lines
KOD DhAG accounts for Hebrew qodash modern kadosh 'holy' Arabic mu'qaddas
'sanctified, holy, consecrated' Turkish mukaddas 'holy (of places)' Persian
mogaddes 'holy, sanctified, sanctuaries' and has a parallel in Italian casa
di Dio 'house of God' for a church. Further derivatives of KOD are for example
Hebrew xasa (chasa) 'find protection' and 'setér 'hidden place, secret'.
whereupon Ruud Harmsen replied (quote)
Which x or ch is that? Anyway, it's not a q. Q was already distinct in
Proto-Semitic and Proto-whatsthenewofthatwiderlanguagefamily. If there
1) unknown to us,
2) highly unlikely.
So what is your evidence that such a connection has existed?
(end of quote)
I don't understand the question. My reconstruction of KOD for tent, hut,
dates from 2006 and was inspired by a comment by Douglas G. Kilday.
The word has very many derivatives, among them cottage, hut, shed,
German Kate 'hut' and Hütte 'hut', Latin casa English house German Haus,
French château English castle, French cité English city, then also hat
as casing of the head, coat as casing of the body, and many many more
examples I gave over the years, in fact it is a most basic word in
hypothetical Magdalenian. This year I added a few more examples from
languages in Asia Minor, especially Hebrew and Arabic. Those languages,
my claim, evolved from the Late Magdalenian spoken in the region of
the Göbekli Tepe 12,000 years ago, and were blended with Afroasiatic
languages. A couple of words are still clearly recognizeable, especially
in the regligious context, as I explained many times. When you look at
language evolution and development ('evodevo' in biological lingo) the
original K branched into various different consonants: K(ate) c(ottage)
sh(ed) h(ut). You have to learn to look at language the way it actually
evolved over time: along the flow of time, not against it.

KOD for tent, hut, has further derivatives in Finnish kota 'dwelling, tent,
hut' Czech chatrc (chatrch) 'hut' and chata 'mountain hut' Avestan kata
'chamber' and hadis (hadish) 'home' Latin sedes English seat and settle
settlement Arabic qu.ada (dot marking a hamza) 'to sit' and quds 'sanctuary'

qa3ada 3 voiced pharyngeal fricativr

Post by Franz Gnaedinger
Hebrew xeder (kheder) 'chamber, Thora school, Talmud school' and xadron
(khadron) 'little chamber, chamber' Arabic hudshra (initial h choked)
'chamber' and finally Persian cador (chador) 'tent'.
Middle English has cod coth couth for hut, German Kate Kathe Hütte, Sanskrit
khada and kuti, also kota kotta for a fortress, and kotara for a cave.
Irish cod English head are words for the casing of the mind, with cognates
in German Schädel 'skull' and Hebrew kodkod 'skull' (the emphatic doubling
maybe prolonging the ancient tradition of clay-covered and sculpted skulls
from Jericho that kept back the spirit of a worthy dead).
If the head is a casing of the mind, the hood a casing of the head,
neighborhood a metaphor, abbreviated to hood in the language of hiphop.
German Schote 'husk, pod' names a small casing of plant life, consider also
English seed and German Saat 'sowing'. Schote is close to the ethnic name
Scot which might go back to fabulous early dwellings like Skara Brae that
resembles a husk or pod in the ground and was certainly part of the
collective memory.
Word branching in the wake of material progress required the splitting of
consonants, in the given case the initial K of hypothetical KOD became
k kh c ch s sh q h and a choked h in Arabic.
Magdalenian widens the limited understanding of word branching in PIE and
revives the pioneering days of the comparative method.