Thread

1. kleton · 1789709109 · focus · HN ↗

   > because the Proto-Indo-European language arose in the landlocked steppes, it had no need for—and has no securely reconstructable word for—‘sea’.

   No, it is mori, attested in marine, muir, maryadah, mal, morje, etc in farflung IE tongues today.

   1. TFNA · 1789709548 · focus · HN ↗

      There are decades of scholarship on those cognates, and a longstanding view that in Proto-Indo-European the word meant simply "large body of water" and not specifically "sea". Moreover, it may be a substrate word borrowed into European IE languages, as the affinity of that Sanskrit word to this cognate set is not very certain.

      1. kleton · 1789710635 · focus · HN ↗

         It is probably not a substrate word, but more likely coming from "dead" water, as in not a moving river.

         1. TFNA · 1789710878 · focus · HN ↗

            This is a well-established field where you can read experts discussing the word in depth, including its derivational properties and ablaut behavior. This isn't something where an HN's armchair guess is worth anything, just like when laypeople use HN threads on quantum theory for their own inane ideas.

            1. kleton · 1789712517 · focus · HN ↗

               Carl Darling Buck (A Dictionary of Selected Synonyms in the Principal Indo-European Languages) and Julius Pokorny (Indogermanisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch) are just a few of the philologists who have posited this "dead water" hypothesis

               1. TFNA · 1789715261 · focus · HN ↗

                  Neither Buck nor Pokorny are regarded today as worth citing except for historiographical reasons. Their work is obsolete by many decades.

                  1. derriz · 1789718782 · focus · HN ↗

                     Could you recommend a book or reading material that reflects recent developments in PIE research? I have a few books but they’re quite old.

                     1. Affric · 1789855279 · focus · HN ↗

                        It's funny how you cited sources and rather than be given information you were just told that you were very wrong without any attempt to distill knowledge.

                        1. TFNA · 1789926535 · focus · HN ↗

                           For someone in the field, teaching is work, while telling people they are wrong isn't. Unless you are paying good money, you don't have a right to the former instead of the latter. In any event, the GP (note: not the same as the OP) could just look for himself on the shadow libraries, which now have pretty much everything.
                        2. derriz · 1790056636 · focus · HN ↗

                           I didn’t cite sources. You’re confusing me with someone else.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.