Re: Evidence for Nostratic? (was Re: Proto-Uralic?)

Christophe Grandsire scripsit:

> >It's not 100% clear that dent- originally meant "tooth".  Its formal
> >English equivalent "tine" (< ME "tind", as in JRRT's "Tindrock") means
> >"sharp projection", as on a fork, and has no connection with eating.
>
> For what is worth, in French such a thing is called "dent", meaning
> definitely "tooth", which for me is no different from talking about the
> "foot" of a mountain.
Sure.  In all Italic languages (except those, if any, which have lost it),
the form dent- was long ago committed to the meaning "tooth", and any other
meanings it has acquired are metaphorical extensions.  Similarly, the
German Zahn is also committed to that meaning.  But as far as anybody knows,
English "tine" ~ "tind" has never meant "tooth", and it's just possible
that the PIE ancestor of the Italic and Germanic form didn't mean "tooth"
either.  The trouble with old metaphors like this is that it's hard to know
which way they originally ran - from prong to tooth, or from tooth to prong?

To clear up the point, in case anyone was wondering, forks had originally
nothing to do with eating: that too is a metaphorical extension from the
agricultural implement used for digging, pitching hay, or what have you.

--
John Cowan  www.ccil.org/~cowan  www.reutershealth.com  jcowan@reutershealth.com
All "isms" should be "wasms".   --Abbie