There are 15 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Re: Second person/polite pronouns (fuit Re: Another Ozymandias)
From: Yahya Abdal-Aziz
2a. Re: Eine beim haspeln
From: Yahya Abdal-Aziz
2b. Re: Eine beim haspeln
From: Sally Caves
3a. Delexicalization of left & right
From: John Vertical
3b. Re: Delexicalization of left & right
From: Ash Wells
3c. Re: Delexicalization of left & right
From: Arnt Richard Johansen
3d. Re: Delexicalization of left & right
From: Henrik Theiling
3e. Re: Delexicalization of left & right
From: Roger Mills
3f. Re: Delexicalization of left & right
From: caeruleancentaur
3g. Re: Delexicalization of left & right
From: Mark J. Reed
4a. Re: USAGE: What gender is _Wikipedia_ in German?
From: Benct Philip Jonsson
4b. Re: USAGE: What gender is _Wikipedia_ in German?
From: Andreas Johansson
5a. Re: OT: English -uice
From: Steven Williams
5b. Re: OT: English -uice
From: Mark J. Reed
6. Fwd: Re: Delexicalization of left & right
From: caeruleancentaur
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1. Re: Second person/polite pronouns (fuit Re: Another Ozymandias)
Posted by: "Yahya Abdal-Aziz" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Jul 31, 2006 1:54 am (PDT)
On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 Jonathan Knibb wrote:
> T4 has a rather complicated system of pronouns - I must have been in an odd
> mood that day. Unfortunately I don't have my notes with me at the moment, but
> I can give the basics from memory. There are three relevant variables, which
> I refer to as "familiarity" (F), "authority" (A) and "servility" (S).
[snip description of F and A variables]
> The prototype for asymmetrical S is the master-servant relationship. This is
> where it gets really complicated. :) In principle, there could be a
> full-servility situation parallel to the full-authority situation I
> described, where both speakers (X and Y) use high-S pronouns for X and low-S
> pronouns for Y. However, this is very unusual. ...
[etc]
Jonathan,
This system is elegant, extremely polite and quite convincingly naturalistic.
Because some FAS combinations suit prototypical situations, many other
combinations would be rarely or never used; which fact gives your speakers the
opportunity to express novel relationships, in both subtle and shocking ways.
It could be the basis of both a courtly etiquette and a thieves' argot, at one
and the same time. I like!
Although I was at first surpised that you have two separate factors for
Authority and Servility, I can envisage situations of "democratic (non-servile)
authority", such as an elected spokesperson and his constituency; and also
situations of "formal servility" that acknowledges no authority eg, an actual
power, such as Shogun, to a titular master, such as Emperor. These would be
difficult to convey succinctly without having both A & S variables.
Regards,
Yahya
Messages in this topic (39)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re: Eine beim haspeln
Posted by: "Yahya Abdal-Aziz" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Jul 31, 2006 1:59 am (PDT)
On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 Christian Koettl wrote:
> Now a quick follow-up:
> In "Meyers Konversationslexikon" (4. Auflage, 1885-1892) there is short
> passage explaining "Fitze" in the article about "Garn" (yarn):
[paragraph snipped]
> Now, I don't have it at home, but the nice folks at the University of Ulm
> have scanned it. You can find it here:
> http://susi.e-technik.uni-ulm.de:8080/Meyers2/index/index.html
>
> and the article about "Garn" (yarn) here:
> http://susi.e-technik.uni-ulm.de:8080/Meyers2/seite/werk/meyers/band/6/seite/0911/meyers_b6_s0911.html
Christian,
Thanks for the links.
The imtranslator site http://translation.paralink.com/default.asp gives this
translation, which is reasonably complete, mostly excepting unusual nouns:
"The spun threads are rolled up for the purpose of the numbering on a windlass
by certain circumference (sputtered), namely a certain length with einemmal on
the windlass is always brought and taken as a strand or rope. One divides the
strand by preventing with a crosswise durchflochtenen thread into bundle (Bind,
Preventing, Wiel, Wiedel or Fitze). Every such Fitze exists of a settled number
of threads, i.e. to windlass ambulatories. The thread is as long as the
circumference of the Haspels, and if one multiplies this by the number of the
threads in the Fitze and by the number of the Fitzen in the strand, one
receives the whole thread length of a strand."
I rather enjoyed "Preventing" as a noun ...
OT:
"Garn", of course, in AusE translates not "yarn", but one of a pair of
imperatives:
- "Garn!" = "Go on!", used, eg, to send a stray dog packing.
- "Carn!" = "Come on!", used for encouraging one's favoured sports team, as
in, eg, "Carn the Crows!" and "Carn the 'Pies!", which might be heard at an AFL
(Australian Football League) match almost anywhere in the country.
Regards,
Yahya
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: Eine beim haspeln
Posted by: "Sally Caves" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Jul 31, 2006 6:51 am (PDT)
This has been very interesting to me, as I read through it. I have settled
on "ball of yarn" for the definition provided by Matthias Lexer, but what I
really think is being described, since "reel" and "thread" are in the
passage I'm translating, is THRUM-GATHERING. uizze. Especially since the
description by Lexer, which is separate from the text and an
interpretation--so suspect, tells how they, plural, are "cut off." The
thrum is the rest of the threads that are left when a fabric has been woven
on a loom, and one cuts them off, and presumable wraps them up (you don't
want to waste the thread). Fitze?
Sally
----- Original Message -----
From: "Yahya Abdal-Aziz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 4:40 AM
Subject: Re: Eine beim haspeln
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 Christian Koettl wrote:
>> Now a quick follow-up:
>> In "Meyers Konversationslexikon" (4. Auflage, 1885-1892) there is short
>> passage explaining "Fitze" in the article about "Garn" (yarn):
>
> [paragraph snipped]
>
>> Now, I don't have it at home, but the nice folks at the University of Ulm
>> have scanned it. You can find it here:
>> http://susi.e-technik.uni-ulm.de:8080/Meyers2/index/index.html
>>
>> and the article about "Garn" (yarn) here:
>> http://susi.e-technik.uni-ulm.de:8080/Meyers2/seite/werk/meyers/band/6/seite/0911/meyers_b6_s0911.html
>
> Christian,
>
> Thanks for the links.
>
> The imtranslator site http://translation.paralink.com/default.asp gives
> this translation, which is reasonably complete, mostly excepting unusual
> nouns:
>
> "The spun threads are rolled up for the purpose of the numbering on a
> windlass by certain circumference (sputtered), namely a certain length
> with einemmal on the windlass is always brought and taken as a strand or
> rope. One divides the strand by preventing with a crosswise
> durchflochtenen thread into bundle (Bind, Preventing, Wiel, Wiedel or
> Fitze). Every such Fitze exists of a settled number of threads, i.e. to
> windlass ambulatories. The thread is as long as the circumference of the
> Haspels, and if one multiplies this by the number of the threads in the
> Fitze and by the number of the Fitzen in the strand, one receives the
> whole thread length of a strand."
>
> I rather enjoyed "Preventing" as a noun ...
>
> OT:
> "Garn", of course, in AusE translates not "yarn", but one of a pair of
> imperatives:
> - "Garn!" = "Go on!", used, eg, to send a stray dog packing.
> - "Carn!" = "Come on!", used for encouraging one's favoured sports team,
> as in, eg, "Carn the Crows!" and "Carn the 'Pies!", which might be heard
> at an AFL (Australian Football League) match almost anywhere in the
> country.
>
> Regards,
> Yahya
>
>
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Delexicalization of left & right
Posted by: "John Vertical" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Jul 31, 2006 5:56 am (PDT)
Hello List,
So I'm planning that one of my languages shall be devoid of the concepts of
"left" and "right". I've thought up a few lexical items which need to be
split into right and left variants, but I'd like to ask if you can think of
further suggestions. The culture in question is supposed to be approx.
neolithical: agriculture is not out of the question, nor towns, but
centralized religion/society/economy is. (It does exist elsewhere, however.)
I'm thinking of placing them in either northern India or pre-desertation
Sahara in a conhistory that diverges from ours a good deal before present
(possibly allowing multiple hominid species). Also, any ANADEW chances?
I have the following nouns split:
* Hands
* Feet
* Eyes
* Forks of road
* Sides of building (wrt. the entrance)
* Sides of river (technically, it's wrt. the direction of flow, not the
direction you're facing)
* possibly draft-animals-out-of-a-pair
Legs, ears etc. will be derived from the other body parts, in a "ear of the
Right Eye" fashion.
Verbs:
* to turn
* to aim (with bow/spear/etc)
More specific cultural concepts (eg. "sides of altar") to come if/when I get
around designing them in the first place.
John Vertical
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
3b. Re: Delexicalization of left & right
Posted by: "Ash Wells" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Jul 31, 2006 7:10 am (PDT)
Interesting concept!
What about 'thing/one' - when you're describing a non-specific item, or
differentiating 2 objects out of a pair.
e.g.
'Which one would you like?' 'The one on the left'.
Ash
John Vertical <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello List,
So I'm planning that one of my languages shall be devoid of the concepts of
"left" and "right". I've thought up a few lexical items which need to be
split into right and left variants, but I'd like to ask if you can think of
further suggestions. The culture in question is supposed to be approx.
neolithical: agriculture is not out of the question, nor towns, but
centralized religion/society/economy is. (It does exist elsewhere, however.)
I'm thinking of placing them in either northern India or pre-desertation
Sahara in a conhistory that diverges from ours a good deal before present
(possibly allowing multiple hominid species). Also, any ANADEW chances?
I have the following nouns split:
* Hands
* Feet
* Eyes
* Forks of road
* Sides of building (wrt. the entrance)
* Sides of river (technically, it's wrt. the direction of flow, not the
direction you're facing)
* possibly draft-animals-out-of-a-pair
Legs, ears etc. will be derived from the other body parts, in a "ear of the
Right Eye" fashion.
Verbs:
* to turn
* to aim (with bow/spear/etc)
More specific cultural concepts (eg. "sides of altar") to come if/when I get
around designing them in the first place.
John Vertical
---------------------------------
All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease
of use." - PC Magazine
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
3c. Re: Delexicalization of left & right
Posted by: "Arnt Richard Johansen" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Jul 31, 2006 9:11 am (PDT)
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, John Vertical wrote:
> Hello List,
> So I'm planning that one of my languages shall be devoid of the concepts of
> "left" and "right".
Nice!
> I've thought up a few lexical items which need to be
> split into right and left variants, but I'd like to ask if you can think of
> further suggestions.
First, a question: how about cardinal directions? (North, south, east,
west.) Surely, these concepts must be important to hunter-gatherer
societies.
AFMCL, Ciktal has different lexical items for left index finger (aktal),
and right index finger (etal). There is no word that covers both. You
could of course go with left/right version of every body part that comes
in pairs, but it gets kinda implausible for the language to have that kind
of fine-grainedness, yet still have no words for left and right.
Other suggestions:
- port/starboard
- clockwise/counterclockwise
- right-handed/left-handed helicity
Also, the lexical items for Right Eye and Left Eye might over time undergo
semantic drift, so that they end up actually meaning right and left. This
would especially be the case if they can be combined with the words for
specific body parts that come in left-right pairs.
--
Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/
Read This Before Opening Package: According to Certain Suggested
Versions of a Grand Unified Theory, the Primary Particles Constituting
This Product May Decay to Nothingness Within the Next Four Hundred
Million Years. --Susan Hewitt and Edward Subitzky
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
3d. Re: Delexicalization of left & right
Posted by: "Henrik Theiling" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Jul 31, 2006 9:50 am (PDT)
Hi!
Arnt Richard Johansen rites:
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, John Vertical wrote:
>
> > Hello List,
> > So I'm planning that one of my languages shall be devoid of the
> > concepts of "left" and "right".
>
> Nice!
>
> > I've thought up a few lexical items which need to be split into
> > right and left variants, but I'd like to ask if you can think of
> > further suggestions.
>
> First, a question: how about cardinal directions? (North, south, east,
> west.) Surely, these concepts must be important to hunter-gatherer
> societies.
And there are definitely natlangs that use such an absolute system, to
a varying degree, and not only hunter-gatherer ones. When I was in
Taiwan, people I asked in a supermarket would tell me that the milk
was in the east. I was in a closed building, right, a supermarket, so
I was a bit puzzled. :-)
I'm not sure, however, to what extent the Chinese language prefers
absolute directions over relative ones.
Further, I read in a newspaper article that it is suspected that the
absolute direction system is easier to handle by humans; IIRC, it was
counted and compared how many mistakes people from different cultures
make with their native system, and the result was that there are fewer
people who fail to master the absolute system that those that fail to
master the relative system.
And it is quite a common phenomenon to mix up left and right, isn't
it? Anyway, I cannot imagine to internalise an absolute system now --
I'm probably too old.
**Henrik
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
3e. Re: Delexicalization of left & right
Posted by: "Roger Mills" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Jul 31, 2006 10:03 am (PDT)
Armt Richard Johansen wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, John Vertical wrote:
>
> > Hello List,
> > So I'm planning that one of my languages shall be devoid of the concepts
> > of
> > "left" and "right".
>
> Nice!
>
> > I've thought up a few lexical items which need to be
> > split into right and left variants, but I'd like to ask if you can think
> > of
> > further suggestions.
>
> First, a question: how about cardinal directions? (North, south, east,
> west.) Surely, these concepts must be important to hunter-gatherer
> societies.
Some languages use derivs. of "toward the mountains/toward the sea", up/down
etc. but of course that depends on the local geography and one's orientation
in it...
>
> could of course go with left/right version of every body part that comes
> in pairs, but it gets kinda implausible for the language to have that kind
> of fine-grainedness, yet still have no words for left and right.
I think so too.
>
> Other suggestions:
>
> - port/starboard
> - clockwise/counterclockwise
> - right-handed/left-handed helicity
IIRC from what John V. said about his people, they may not have that level
of technological thought....?
>
> Also, the lexical items for Right Eye and Left Eye might over time undergo
> semantic drift, so that they end up actually meaning right and left. This
> would especially be the case if they can be combined with the words for
> specific body parts that come in left-right pairs.
I agree. Since humans are constructed with bilateral symmetry, it's always
struck me as unlikely that the left/right opposition wouldn't develop.
Question: if Martians were spherical, with multiple arms, how would we
explain left/right to them? :-))
Some idle thoughts: is Latin dexter possibly related to the IE root ?*deik
'to point'? The Romance langs. adapted directus 'straight' for 'right', <
IE *reg 'rule', no?
Whether the cultural concept _right: good vs. left: bad, taboo_ is really
ancient is an interesting question.
Some Austronesian langs. use *-bali for 'left'-- probably homonymous with
several similar *forms meaning 'side; answer; return; companion' as well as
'clumsy, awkward' and 'enemy' !!
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
3f. Re: Delexicalization of left & right
Posted by: "caeruleancentaur" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Jul 31, 2006 1:44 pm (PDT)
>Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Some idle thoughts: is Latin dexter possibly related to the IE
>root ?*deik 'to point'? The Romance langs. adapted
directus 'straight' >for 'right', IE *reg 'rule', no?
According to the AHD appendix, the PIE roots *deik- and *deks- have
nothing in common. The *deks- root evolved, in English, solely into
the "dexter" words.
The "original" meaning of *reg- was "to move in a straight line."
There are a host of derivatives: rect-, -ric, reg-, raj, rake, rank,
reck-, rog-.
In Biblical Hebrew (I know nothing about modern Hebrew):
qedem = front, aforetime & EAST.
negeb = Negev & SOUTH.
yam = sea & WEST.
slim = left & NORTH.
yad-slim = left hand.
yamin = right hand & SOUTH is not related to yam = sea. It comes
from the verb aman = to be firm or constant, either because it is
the hand used for swearing an oath or, according to some, because it
is the stronger of the two. BTW, also the source of our
English "amen."
Forgive me for not including the vowel points.
I remember that, on the wall in our Hebrew classroom at Cath. U.,
there was a map of Europe & the Near East from an Arabic point of
view. The south was at the top of the map. A bit confusing until
you got the hang of it!
Charlie
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
3g. Re: Delexicalization of left & right
Posted by: "Mark J. Reed" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Jul 31, 2006 1:57 pm (PDT)
On 7/31/06, caeruleancentaur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The *deks- root evolved, in English, solely into the "dexter" words.
By way of Latin, surely? Are there any native English cognates of
"dexter" left? (Or "right", even? Ha ha!)
--
Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4a. Re: USAGE: What gender is _Wikipedia_ in German?
Posted by: "Benct Philip Jonsson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Jul 31, 2006 6:51 am (PDT)
Kalle Bergman skrev:
>>What gender is _Wikipedia_ in German?
>
>
> Okay, not an answer to your question, and tangential
> to the subject, but... what gender is "wikipedia" in
> swedish? "En wikipedia", "ett wikipedia"... it's
> neither, right, because "wikipedia" is a proper name?
>
I definitely agree with you and Andreas that _Wikipedia_
is a proper name in Swedish. It probably is in German
too, but IIANM proper names can have any gender in German,
and (of this I'm sure) you *need* to know what gender a
name has in order to choose the right anaphoric forms
when referring to it.
> (Begin rant)
>
> Makes me think of my dad's dialect, which has a
> special set of clitics used with names of people, when
> those names are used to refer to a person by that
> name. (So, for instance, you use the clitic when
> saying things like "I met Ove yesterday", but not when
> saying "His name is Ove", because in the latter case,
> "Ove" refers to the name itself, rather than to
> someone called "Ove"). The clitics were en-/n- in the
> case of men, and a- in the case of women, so you got
> things like:
>
> Jag såg n'Ove
> I saw Ove
>
> And
>
> Jag såg a'Karin
> I saw Karin
>
> I think it's an interesting feature.
It is. These forms come from the old pronoun
_hinn (m), hin (f), hitt (n)_ which basically
meant (and still means in Icelandic, Faroese
and Norwegian) roughly the same as, and is
cognate to, German _jener_, i.e. basically
'the other one', but could also be used as
a demonstrative and relative pronoun: as you
perhaps know the Scandinavian postposed definite
article also derives from _hinn_ used enclitically,
and its forms were often written without _h-_
in Old Norse. In the function you describe they
were preposed to a person's name when referring to
that person -- much as the definite article can be in
German and always is in Greek -- and again with
great phonetic attrition due to being clitic.
I wonder if the feminine form _a_ comes from
the accusative singular feminine _hina_ or
from the nominative _hin_ with a soundchange
_in > i~ > E~ > a~_. The fact that many
Scandinavian dialects have enclitic object
pronun forms _'en (m), 'na (f), -et (n)_
(among them *my* dad's dialect! :-) talks
for the accusative origin, but the fact that
the feminine singular and neuter plural
article both develop into _-a < -in_ speaks
for the nasalization and lowering of _hin_
hypothesis.
BTW my dad used to joke about the Vestrogothian
and Bahusian translation of the German paradigm
_sie, ihrer, ihr, sie_ which went _hu, henneres,
ôtna, hu_ -- note how the nominative stands in
for the old accusative when stressed: the _-na_
form -- in this case deriving from the accusative
_hana_ of the personal pronoun _hun/hon_ wasn't
stressable! Also note the absence of a reflex of
the old dative _henni_ which has given the obliq1ue
case in standard Swedish!
> /Kalle B
>
> --- Benct Philip Jonsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev:
>
>
>>Well, the subject line says it all:
>>What gender is _Wikipedia_ in German?
>>Sure _paidía_ is feminine in Greek, but
>>one can never be sure. It might even be
>>neuter plural! ;-)
>>--
>>
>>/BP 8^)>
>>--
>>Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch at melroch dot se
>>
>> Solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant!
>>
>>(Tacitus)
>>
>>I'm afraid the current situation in the Eastern
>>Mediterranean forces me to reinstate this
>>signature...
>>
>
>
>
>
--
/BP 8^)>
--
Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch at melroch dot se
Solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant!
(Tacitus)
I'm afraid the current situation in the Eastern
Mediterranean forces me to reinstate this signature...
Messages in this topic (14)
________________________________________________________________________
4b. Re: USAGE: What gender is _Wikipedia_ in German?
Posted by: "Andreas Johansson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Jul 31, 2006 2:16 pm (PDT)
Quoting Benct Philip Jonsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The fact that many
> Scandinavian dialects have enclitic object
> pronun forms _'en (m), 'na (f), -et (n)_
> (among them *my* dad's dialect! :-)
I've got those too.
Now we just need some Swedish George Bernard Shaw to pounce on _slå honom_
[slo:n], _med henne_ [mE:na], and _tag det_ [tA:t].
Andreas
Messages in this topic (14)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
5a. Re: OT: English -uice
Posted by: "Steven Williams" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Jul 31, 2006 9:55 am (PDT)
--- Mark Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Juice" is second-nature, but "sluice" still throws
> me. Makes me want to say /sluwIs/ or something.
Hold on, you mean it's _not_ pronounced [sluwIs]?
How's it really pronounced, then? [slu:s]?
...And I've been saying *that* for how many years
(well over a decade, since I first encountered the
word in print)?
___________________________________________________________
Der frühe Vogel fängt den Wurm. Hier gelangen Sie zum neuen Yahoo! Mail:
http://mail.yahoo.de
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
5b. Re: OT: English -uice
Posted by: "Mark J. Reed" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Jul 31, 2006 10:21 am (PDT)
On 7/31/06, Steven Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hold on, you mean it's _not_ pronounced [sluwIs]?
> How's it really pronounced, then? [slu:s]?
Assuming you pronounce "juice" as [dZ)u:s], then yeah. The two words
should rhyme perfectly.
> ...And I've been saying *that* for how many years
> (well over a decade, since I first encountered the
> word in print)?
Yup. I still think of it mentally as [sluwIs]. I just correct myself
now before it comes out of my mouth that way. :)
--
Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
6. Fwd: Re: Delexicalization of left & right
Posted by: "caeruleancentaur" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Jul 31, 2006 7:25 pm (PDT)
>"Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>By way of Latin, surely? Are there any native English cognates of
>"dexter" left? (Or "right", even? Ha ha!)
Yes, by way of *deks plus a suffix > *deks(i)-tero-. The only
English words from this PIE root are dexter (dexterity), dextro-,
destrier, ambidexter.
Interestingly, *-tero- is used as a PIE suffix indicating one of two:
*antero-, other of two, < *anyo-, other.
*kwotero-, who of two, < *kwo-, who.
It is also used as a suffix on two of the directions:
*austero-, eastern, < *aus-, east.
*westero-, western, < *wes-, west.
And, it is the PIE suffix for the comparative:
*wi-, far, > *witero-, farther.
It is too bad that "sinister" is of an unknown origin. Given the
(i) in the PIE root, we might have had something with "dexter"
and "sinister"!
Charlie
Messages in this topic (1)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
