Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/Hrewp-
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
@Rua, JohnC5, AryamanA I'm wondering if we're actually dealing with two roots, *Hrewp- (“to break, tear (up)”) and *lewp- (“to disturb, violate, injure, inflict pain”). We also have Ancient Greek λύπη (lúpē, “pain, grief”), which, if related, shows no initial laryangal. --Victar (talk) 01:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- I can't really help much with my limited knowledge of Proto-Indo-European (especially since I only bother with Indo-Aryan, and there's no consistent r/l declension in that family), but it appears to me that most literature reconstructs this root as *rewp-. I can't find anything with the laryngeal. *lewp- has a lot of pages pointing to it on Wiktionary; it also means "to peel off" apparently. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 02:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- PIE doesn't allow for words beginning in*r-, so we always assume an initial laryngeal. Older literature doesn't take that rule into account. Yep, there is also PBL *loup(e)itei (“to peel, tear off, plunder”), which semantically fits perfectly with *Hrewp-, but obviously doesn't match the *-r-. I tagged you because I wanted to get your thoughts on all the Sanskrit entries, particularly because it seems odd to have both लुप्यति (lupyati, “to disturb, confound”) and रुप्यति (rupyati, “to violate, suffer pain”) and लोप (lopa, “breaking, injury”) and रोप (ropa, “disturbing, confusing”). --Victar (talk) 02:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Victar: Beekes wants Ancient Greek λύπη (lúpē, “pain, grief”) to come from *lewp- (“to peel”) with Lithuanian lùpti (“to peel, fleece, flay”), Russian лупи́ть (lupítʹ, “to peel”), Old High German louft, loft (“bark”). LIV also has “?leu̯p-” meaning “(ab)schälen”. LIV goes out of its way to mention in a footnote that Vedic lop- comes from “reu̯p-”. —*i̯óh₁nC[5] 04:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- @JohnC5: Right, that's the same PBS root mentioned above. LIV just clumps everything together, but I'm wondering if we indeed have two separate roots, and if so, where is that line drawn? Did one influence the other, both in spelling and meaning? Of the non-PII definitions we have: 1. to break, tear (off), peel (HR/L) 2. to pillage, plunder (HR/L) 3. inflict pain (L). Which would belong to which? --Victar (talk) 13:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Victar: Well, they definitely need to be separated on a purely phonological basis. They are decently closely related in meaning, which makes it difficult to tell which is which. Are you asking about separate roots within the L and the HR forms, or just those two phonologically different roots? —*i̯óh₁nC[5] 05:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- @JohnC5: Well the problem is separating the PII roots into L and HR roots, and we also have to take into account that some descendants may have been either merged or influenced by one another. Potentially very messy. I'll try can try my hand at it using a user page. --Victar (talk) 06:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Victar: That'd be great! —*i̯óh₁nC[5] 11:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- @JohnC5: Well the problem is separating the PII roots into L and HR roots, and we also have to take into account that some descendants may have been either merged or influenced by one another. Potentially very messy. I'll try can try my hand at it using a user page. --Victar (talk) 06:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Victar: Well, they definitely need to be separated on a purely phonological basis. They are decently closely related in meaning, which makes it difficult to tell which is which. Are you asking about separate roots within the L and the HR forms, or just those two phonologically different roots? —*i̯óh₁nC[5] 05:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- @JohnC5: Right, that's the same PBS root mentioned above. LIV just clumps everything together, but I'm wondering if we indeed have two separate roots, and if so, where is that line drawn? Did one influence the other, both in spelling and meaning? Of the non-PII definitions we have: 1. to break, tear (off), peel (HR/L) 2. to pillage, plunder (HR/L) 3. inflict pain (L). Which would belong to which? --Victar (talk) 13:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Victar: Beekes wants Ancient Greek λύπη (lúpē, “pain, grief”) to come from *lewp- (“to peel”) with Lithuanian lùpti (“to peel, fleece, flay”), Russian лупи́ть (lupítʹ, “to peel”), Old High German louft, loft (“bark”). LIV also has “?leu̯p-” meaning “(ab)schälen”. LIV goes out of its way to mention in a footnote that Vedic lop- comes from “reu̯p-”. —*i̯óh₁nC[5] 04:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- PIE doesn't allow for words beginning in*r-, so we always assume an initial laryngeal. Older literature doesn't take that rule into account. Yep, there is also PBL *loup(e)itei (“to peel, tear off, plunder”), which semantically fits perfectly with *Hrewp-, but obviously doesn't match the *-r-. I tagged you because I wanted to get your thoughts on all the Sanskrit entries, particularly because it seems odd to have both लुप्यति (lupyati, “to disturb, confound”) and रुप्यति (rupyati, “to violate, suffer pain”) and लोप (lopa, “breaking, injury”) and रोप (ropa, “disturbing, confusing”). --Victar (talk) 02:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)