# Proto-Germanic *berxtaz "shining" and Akkadian berqu "shine"



## CyrusSH

Old Persian _brazaiti_  and Sanskrit _bhrájate_ seem to be from proto-IE *_bʰreg_- "to shine", the proto-Germanic word is similar but it doesn't seem to be from this PIE root, does it relate to the Akkadian word?


----------



## Treaty

It is from a variant of the same PIE root (*_bʰereĝ_)_._


----------



## CyrusSH

Treaty said:


> It is from a variant of the same PIE root (*_bʰereĝ_)_._



Proto-IE _g_ couldn't be changed to _x_ in Germanic.


----------



## Sobakus

CyrusSH said:


> Proto-IE _g_ couldn't be changed to _x_ in Germanic.


Voiced stops were devoiced before other voiceless stops in (most? all?) PIE dialects (and the other way around; _s_ was voiced too), so _g't -> k't -> xt. _Here's the relevant wikipedia article.


----------



## CyrusSH

Sobakus said:


> Voiced stops were devoiced before other voiceless stops in (most? all?) PIE dialects (and the other way around; _s_ was voiced too), so _g't -> k't -> xt. _Here's the relevant wikipedia article.



What do you mean by PIE dialects?! Was there _*ǵt_ cluster in PIE?


----------



## inquisitiveness1

CyrusSH said:


> Was there _*ǵt_ cluster in PIE?


Yes. As another example that is more obvious, the Proto-Germanic _*rextax_ (Eng. "right") comes from _*h₃reǵtós_ (from the _*h₃reǵ-_ root +‎ _*-tós_ suffix). ǵt -> gt -> kt -> xt was the shift.



CyrusSH said:


> What do you mean by PIE dialects?!


He indicated he was not sure if how many PIE dialects had this devoicing phenomenon (speculated maybe it was most or all of them though). In any case, even if there were some PIE dialects that did not have this devoicing, those dialects were not the ones that were ancestral to Proto-Germanic. So for instance, _*h₃reǵtós_ would certainly be the older form, but when you look at the descendants of this word in Germanic and other languages like Latin, Greek, Celtic, etc, all of them actually have forms that look as if the ancestral form they descended from was _*h₃reḱtós_ rather than _*h₃reǵtós_, all having consonants that normally correspond to _*ḱ_, not _*ǵ_ (but as said, _*h₃reǵtós_ would be the older form, and that shifted to _*h₃reḱtós_ in some number of dialects in the later PIE period ~ one of these being the ancestor to Germanic).


----------



## fdb

I think you are asking about Avestan (not Old Persian) brāz-, Sanskrit bhrāj- “to shine”. Current thinking is that they go back to IE *bʰreHǵ and that they are not the same word as *bʰreǵ, *bʰerǵ “to roast”.

Akkadian birqu, Aramaic barqā (birqā), Arabic barq all mean “lightning”.


----------



## CyrusSH

inquisitiveness1 said:


> Yes. As another example that is more obvious, the Proto-Germanic _*rextax_ (Eng. "right") comes from _*h₃reǵtós_ (from the _*h₃reǵ-_ root +‎ _*-tós_ suffix). ǵt -> gt -> kt -> xt was the shift.



Persian cognate of _right_ is _rast_, there is clearly _ḱ_>_s_ sound change, not _ǵ_>_z_ in Persian.


----------



## CyrusSH

fdb said:


> I think you are asking about Avestan (not Old Persian) brāz-, Sanskrit bhrāj- “to shine”. Current thinking is that they go back to IE *bʰreHǵ and that they are not the same word as *bʰreǵ, *bʰerǵ “to roast”.



And what about the Germanic word?



fdb said:


> Akkadian birqu, Aramaic barqā (birqā), Arabic barq all mean “lightning”.



They certainly mean "shining" too.


----------



## inquisitiveness1

CyrusSH said:


> Persian cognate of _right_ is _rast_, there is clearly _ḱ_>_s_ sound change, not _ǵ_>_z_ in Persian.


...That supports what I said. The fact that the consonant before the t in rāst is unvoiced implies it is derived from a dialect of PIE where the pre-t consonant was _*ḱ_ rather than _*ǵ_ (i.e. if the *ǵ in _*h₃reǵtós_ wasn't devoiced, one might expect _*rāzt_ or something or something instead to have been the form). And I am saying the same thing occurred for the cluster _*ǵt_ in pre-Germanic. If _*ǵt_ did not become _*ḱt_ in the PIE dialect that predated Germanic, then you would see _*rektaz_ rather than _*rextaz_ as the descendant of _*h₃reǵtós_...but we don't see that.



CyrusSH said:


> fdb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Akkadian birqu, Aramaic barqā (birqā), Arabic barq all mean “lightning”.
> 
> 
> 
> They certainly mean "shining" too.
Click to expand...

My current understanding is that the "flash, shine" senses of the root are secondary developments to the primary noun sense "lightning" (I personally am not 100% sure on what the more original sense would be though. "Lightning" appears to be the more common/prevalant meaning of the root in daughter languages, but I am not 100% sure if "flash/shine" or something was the more original sense from which "lightning" came, or vice-versa. I currently am of the opinion it is "lightning" -> "flash/shine")


----------



## berndf

inquisitiveness1 said:


> ...That supports what I said. The fact that the consonant before the t in rāst is unvoiced implies it is derived from a dialect of PIE where the pre-t consonant was _*ḱ_ rather than _*ǵ_ (i.e. if the *ǵ in _*h₃reǵtós_ wasn't devoiced, one might expect _*rāzt_ or something or something instead to have been the form). And I am saying the same thing occurred for the cluster _*ǵt_ in pre-Germanic. If _*ǵt_ did not become _*ḱt_ in the PIE dialect that predated Germanic, then you would see _*rektaz_ rather than _*rextaz_ as the descendant of _*h₃reǵtós_...but we don't see that.


Equally in Latin: _re*g*o & re*c*tus_. There is strong evidence that this devoicing was a regular feature in PIE dialects.


----------



## ahvalj

berndf said:


> Equally in Latin: _re*g*o & re*c*tus_. There is strong evidence that this devoicing was a regular feature in PIE dialects.


_Regō : rēctus_ — Lachmann's law - Wikipedia
The outcomes of the former voiceless stops and "voiced stops" before stops do not coincide in Italic, Balto-Slavic and perhaps Anatolian.


----------



## CyrusSH

inquisitiveness1 said:


> ...That supports what I said. The fact that the consonant before the t in rāst is unvoiced implies it is derived from a dialect of PIE where the pre-t consonant was _*ḱ_ rather than _*ǵ_ (i.e. if the *ǵ in _*h₃reǵtós_ wasn't devoiced, one might expect _*rāzt_ or something or something instead to have been the form). And I am saying the same thing occurred for the cluster _*ǵt_ in pre-Germanic. If _*ǵt_ did not become _*ḱt_ in the PIE dialect that predated Germanic, then you would see _*rektaz_ rather than _*rextaz_ as the descendant of _*h₃reǵtós_...but we don't see that.



It actually supports this thing that there was no *_gt_ cluster in the PIE word for "to shine" because we don't see _brasti/barasti_ in Persian.



inquisitiveness1 said:


> My current understanding is that the "flash, shine" senses of the root are secondary developments to the primary noun sense "lightning" (I personally am not 100% sure on what the more original sense would be though. "Lightning" appears to be the more common/prevalant meaning of the root in daughter languages, but I am not 100% sure if "flash/shine" or something was the more original sense from which "lightning" came, or vice-versa. I currently am of the opinion it is "lightning" -> "flash/shine")



Secondary or primary, Akkadian _berqu_ means "to shine".


----------



## inquisitiveness1

CyrusSH said:


> It actually supports this thing that there was no *_gt_ cluster in the PIE word for "to shine" because we don't see _brasti/barasti_ in Persian.


Just to be clear, what Persian word exactly are you saying we see instead, and what are you claiming is the ancestral form? The claim I am making is that a PIE word with _*ǵt_ would end up as _st_ (with an unvoiced first consonant) in Persian since the _*ǵt_ would become _*ḱt_ before palatalization...but if the specific word form did not have _*ǵ_ followed by _*t_, then you would see _*ǵ_ become its more usual value as the voiced _z_.

If you are talking about word you cited in the OP (_brazaiti_), that doesn't contradict anything I have said, since the _z_ and the _t_ are not in a consonant cluster, so an ancestral form with _*ǵ_ would yield the normal _*z_ result since the _*t_ present in the word did not immediately follow the _*ǵ_ to form a cluster which would result in the devoicing of the _*ǵ _(again, contrast Old Persian _rāsta_, which actually does have a consonant cluster, and results from the _*ǵt_ in _*h₃reǵtós_ devoicing to _*ḱt_ and then undergoing palatalization to _st_)

Also just to double-check, so does this mean you disagree that Persian _rāst _comes from _*h₃reǵtós_, since if no devoicing occurred, that would mean Persian s can't be derived from PIE *ǵ? If you agree that _rāst_ comes from _*h₃reǵtós_, and yet also agree that normally PIE _*ǵ_ yields _*z_ in Persian, then you should accept the concept of the devoicing of _*ǵt_ -> _*ḱt_, which then explain both how the _*x_ in Germanic _*berxtaz_ and the _s_ in Old Persian _rāsta_ could derive from _*ǵ_, yet also having the _z_ in Old Persian _brazaiti_ derive from _ǵ_ as well.

(btw, I am somewhat having difficulty finding the word _brazaiti_ in Old Persian...but regardless, that does not change my response since it is clear there is no consonant cluster in that word that would result in any devoicing of the pre-t consonant)



CyrusSH said:


> Secondary or primary, Akkadian _berqu_ means "to shine".


The issue is that a) The Akkadian word is definitely from PS, and b) the Germanic word has an unproblematic PIE etymology (as discussed in this thread). So if there was any relationship whatsoever between the two words, it would have to be at the PIE-PS relationship level. So you would need to show that PS *brq is related to PIE *bʰreg.

By the way, Akkadian _berqu_ (or more standardly, _birqu_) is a noun meaning "lightning", not a verb. There is a related verb _barāqu_ that does mean "to shine" though.


----------



## CyrusSH

inquisitiveness1 said:


> Just to be clear, what Persian word exactly are you saying we see instead, and what are you claiming is the ancestral form? The claim I am making is that a PIE word with _*ǵt_ would end up as _st_ (with an unvoiced first consonant) in Persian since the _*ǵt_ would become _*ḱt_ before palatalization...but if the specific word form did not have _*ǵ_ followed by _*t_, then you would see _*ǵ_ become its more usual value as the voiced _z_.
> 
> If you are talking about Old Persian _brazaiti_, that doesn't contradict anything I have said, since the _z_ and the _t_ are not in a consonant cluster, so an ancestral form with _*ǵ_ would yield the normal _*z_ result since the _*t_ present in the word did not immediately follow the _*ǵ_ to form a cluster (again, contrast Old Persian _rāsta_, which actually does have a consonant cluster, and results from the _*ǵt_ in _*h₃reǵtós_ devoicing to _*ḱt_ and then undergoing palatalization to _st_)
> 
> Also just to double-check, so does this mean you disagree that Persian _rāst _comes from _*h₃reǵtós_, since if no devoicing occurred, that would mean Persian s can't be derived from PIE *ǵ? If you agree that _rāst_ comes from _*h₃reǵtós_, and yet also agree that normally PIE _*ǵ_ yields _*z_ in Persian, then you should accept the concept of the devoicing of _*ǵt_ -> _*ḱt_, which then explain both how the _*x_ in Germanic _*berxtaz_ and the _s_ in Old Persian _rāsta_ could derive from _*ǵ_, yet also having the _z_ in Old Persian _brazaiti_ derive from _ǵ_ as well.



My point is that the Persian and Sanskrit words show that there was *_bʰr_ and not *_ǵt_ in the original PIE word, whereas in the Germanic word we see the opposite thing, first Treaty said that there was proto-IE *_bʰereĝ_ then for solving *_ǵ_>_x_, Sobakus added a _t_ to the PIE word, so it should be *_bʰereǵt_, I think _-taz_ is actually a suffix in the Germanic word.


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> I think _-taz_ is actually a suffix in the Germanic word.


There is no single morpheme -_taz_. The morphology is _brih-t-az_ and not _brih-taz_._ -az_ is a nominative singular masculine ending.


----------



## Treaty

CyrusSH said:


> My point is that the Persian and Sanskrit words show that there was *_bʰr_ and not *_ǵt_ in the original PIE word


It is common to have multiple PIE words, with and without different endings, and not all of which to be inherited by the daughter languages_._


----------



## inquisitiveness1

CyrusSH said:


> My point is that the Persian and Sanskrit words show that there was *_bʰr_ and not *_ǵt_ in the original PIE word, whereas in the Germanic word we see the opposite thing, first Treaty said that there was proto-IE *_bʰereĝ_ then for solving *_ǵ_>_x_, Sobakus added a _t_ to the PIE word, so it should be *_bʰereǵt_,


My current understanding (and someone correct me if I am mistaken) is that neither Old Persian brazaiti nor Sanskrit bhrájate are considered to derive from the direct combination of the root _*bʰreǵ_ (or the variant root _*bʰereǵ_) + the _*tós_ suffix (which would result in a cluster). The PIE _*tós_ suffix, from what I can tell, results in Sanskrit tá and Old Persian ta, and neither of those words have those endings. So there is some other specific derivation for those words where their ancestral from lacks a *_ǵt _consonant cluster, in contrast to Germanic, which does have a *_ǵt_ due to the _*tós_ suffix added directly after the root _*bʰreǵ_ (or the variant root _*bʰereǵ_).



CyrusSH said:


> I think _-taz_ is actually a suffix in the Germanic word.


-taz is the descendant of the _*tós_ suffix


----------



## ahvalj

The regular Iranic outcome of _*gʲt_ is _št _(palatovelars reflected as _š/ž_ before consonants + devoicing), cp. Avestan:
_vrz-_ → _-vršta-_ — cp. Gothic _waurkjan_ "to work" → _waurhts _(<_*ue̯rgʲ-_ — Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/werǵ- - Wiktionary);
_az-_ → _aštayaē·ča _(<_*hₐegʲ-_ — Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/h₂éǵeti - Wiktionary);
_yaoz- → yaošti-_ (<_*ı̯eugʲhₓ-_);
_yaz- → išta-~yašta-_ (<_*hₓı̯agʲ-_);
_rāz- → rāšta- _(_<*hₒregʲ- _— Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/h₃reǵ- - Wiktionary);
_harəz- → haršta-_ (_<*selgʲ- — _Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/selǵ- - Wiktionary).


----------



## fdb

inquisitiveness1 said:


> (btw, I am somewhat having difficulty finding the word _brazaiti_ in Old Persian...



That is because there is no such word. See no. 7.


----------



## CyrusSH

fdb said:


> That is because there is no such word. See no. 7.



The word _braz-_ exists in the inscription of Xerxes at Persepolis, of course it exists in Middle and Modern Persian too.


----------



## fdb

Do you mean OP brazmaniya-, Skt brahmaṇya- “reverent”?


----------



## CyrusSH

fdb said:


> Do you mean OP brazmaniya-, Skt brahmaṇya- “reverent”?



"reverent"?!! It means "brilliant", Persian is not an extinct language.


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> Persian is not an extinct language.


Old Persian is. How do you derive _brazmaniya- = brilliant_?


----------



## CyrusSH

berndf said:


> Old Persian is. How do you derive _brazmaniya- = brilliant_?



From the verb _brazdian_ "to shine".


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> From the verb _brazdian_ "to shine".


In which language? How is it spelled. I am confused.


----------



## fdb

Persian barāzīdan (sic recte) “to shine” goes with Avestan brāz-, Skt bhrāj-, with long /ā/. Old Persian brazman-, Skt brahman- "ceremony" (or the like) have a short /a/, and a different initial.


----------



## berndf

fdb said:


> Persian barāzīdan (sic recte) “to shine” goes with Avestan brāz-, Skt bhrāj-, with long /ā/. Old Persian brazman-, Skt brahman- "ceremony" (or the like) have a short /a/, and a different initial.


Thank you.


----------



## CyrusSH

fdb said:


> Persian barāzīdan (sic recte) “to shine” goes with Avestan brāz-, Skt bhrāj-, with long /ā/. Old Persian brazman-, Skt brahman- "ceremony" (or the like) have a short /a/, and a different initial.



First you said "reverent", now you say "ceremony", you should find a proper meaning for it in the context, the second part of the word (maniya) is believed to be from the Old Persian verb _man-_ "to stay, to remain", in the Middle and Modern Persian this verb has also long /ā/ (_mān-_).


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> First you said "reverent", now you say "ceremony"


He said:
_brazman- = ceremony_
_brazman*iya*- = reverent_ (derived adjective)


----------



## fdb

It has been compared with Old Norse bragr "poetry".


----------



## CyrusSH

You just want to make a relation between this Persian word and Sanskrit _brahman_, I really don't know why there should be any relation, the Sanskrit word is a compound and its meaning has been developed in the Indian culture, you should compare the Old Persian word to Middle/Modern Persian words or similar words in other Iranian languages, not Indian.


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> You just want to make a relation between this Persian word and Sanskrit _brahman_, I really don't know why there should be any relation, the Sanskrit word is a compound and its meaning has been developed in the Indian culture, you should compare the Old Persian word to Middle/Modern Persian words or similar words in other Iranian languages, not Indian.


I am very surprised. You keeps making most adventurous comparisons between far remote languages groups like Germanic and Semitic but you don't accept comparisons between Avestan and Sanskrit, which are so closely related, both genetically and with respect to their cultural contacts.


----------



## inquisitiveness1

@CyrusSH

Just to get back more on track, what would you say is your current issue with the "PG _*berxtaz_ ultimately derives from PIE _*bʰereǵ_" explanation?

Is it that you reject _*bʰereǵ _(which is being said to be the version root used in the Germanic word, which explains the lack of an initial consonant cluster) existed as a variant root to _*bʰreǵ_ (which is the version of the root use in the Persian and Sanskrit words, that maintains an initial consonant cluster)?

And/Or do you still have an issue with the consonant cluster devoicing idea (where *berxtaz is said to be derive from _*bʰereḱtós_, itself a devoiced version of older _*bʰereǵtós_; whereas _brāzaiti_ (whatever language that is...Avestan I guess) and Sanskrit _bhrā́jate_ are derived from some word form that, in contrast to the case for the pre-Germanic word, lacked a non-initial consonant cluster)?

Edit: Fixed vowel length


----------



## fdb

inquisitiveness1 said:


> _brazaiti_ ... _bhrájate_



Vowel length is actually important. As I have been trying to say...


----------



## inquisitiveness1

fdb said:


> Vowel length is actually important. As I have been trying to say...


Ah, my apologies. I am taking it that you mean _brazaiti_, which lacks the long a, is from a different root than _*bʰreǵ_, correct? (I know you discussed the Persian _barāzīdan_ along with Avestan _brāz-_ & Skt _bhrāj-_ go back to _*bʰreǵ_, whereas Old Persian _brazman _does not...so do you mean that _brazaiti_ is related to _brazman _instead?)

*Edit:* Or do you mean "_brazaiti" _is from _*bʰreǵ_, but I erroneously wrote _brazaiti_ rather than _brāzaiti_?


----------



## fdb

inquisitiveness1 said:


> I erroneously wrote _brazaiti_ rather than _brāzaiti_?



Yes.


----------



## inquisitiveness1

fdb said:


> Yes.


Oh, got it. I'll go fix that.


----------



## desi4life

inquisitiveness1 said:


> Oh, got it. I'll go fix that.



There's also an _ā _in the cognate Sanskrit word.


----------



## inquisitiveness1

desi4life said:


> There's also an _ā _in the cognate Sanskrit word.


The á in "bhrájate" is synonymous to ā I believe. Just different notation.


----------



## desi4life

The diacritic is an accent mark that is written above the _ā_, i.e. _ā́. _


----------



## inquisitiveness1

desi4life said:


> The diacritic is an accent mark that is written above the _ā_, i.e. _ā́. _


Oh. I think I was confusing it with â, which I often see used to represent long a in Indo-Aryan languages. I'll go fix it then.

Edit: Mods, let me know if I should delete my recent posts regarding the vowel length if it is too much unneeded clutter.


----------



## Treaty

CyrusSH said:


> You just want to make a relation between this Persian word and Sanskrit _brahman_, I really don't know why there should be any relation, the Sanskrit word is a compound and its meaning has been developed in the Indian culture, you should compare the Old Persian word to Middle/Modern Persian words or similar words in other Iranian languages, not Indian.


Just a fun fact: Old Persian was initially deciphered *based on Sanskrit*.


----------



## CyrusSH

berndf said:


> I am very surprised. You keeps making most adventurous comparisons between far remote languages groups like Germanic and Semitic but you don't accept comparisons between Avestan and Sanskrit, which are so closely related, both genetically and with respect to their cultural contacts.



I have never tried to find the meaning of Germanic words from Semitic words, in my initial post you can see that I have mentioned both Persian and Sanskrit words but it doesn't mean Iranian and Indian cultures were the same, about religious words we see the Iranian words have usually opposite meanings of Indian words, so I never believe that Persian cognate of Brahman had a positive meaning, interestingly Xerxes in the same inscription talks about these differences.


----------



## CyrusSH

inquisitiveness1 said:


> @CyrusSH
> 
> Just to get back more on track, what would you say is your current issue with the "PG _*berxtaz_ ultimately derives from PIE _*bʰereǵ_" explanation?
> 
> Is it that you reject _*bʰereǵ _(which is being said to be the version root used in the Germanic word, which explains the lack of an initial consonant cluster) existed as a variant root to _*bʰreǵ_ (which is the version of the root use in the Persian and Sanskrit words, that maintains an initial consonant cluster)?
> 
> And/Or do you still have an issue with the consonant cluster devoicing idea (where *berxtaz is said to be derive from _*bʰereḱtós_, itself a devoiced version of older _*bʰereǵtós_; whereas _brāzaiti_ (whatever language that is...Avestan I guess) and Sanskrit _bhrā́jate_ are derived from some word form that, in contrast to the case for the pre-Germanic word, lacked a non-initial consonant cluster)?
> 
> Edit: Fixed vowel length



The interesting thing for me is that a short or long is a very important thing here but you can easily add and remove vowels to prove the proto-Germanic word has the same PIE root!!


----------



## CyrusSH

Treaty said:


> Just a fun fact: Old Persian was initially deciphered *based on Sanskrit*.



It would be strange that you believed another thing, I didn't know the names of ancient Persian kings had Sanskrit origin!!


----------



## Treaty

CyrusSH said:


> about religious words we see the Iranian words have *usually *opposite meanings of Indian words,


So, should we believe that you surveyed common religious terms between Iranian and Indian, and then you found at least 50% ("usually") of them were opposite? Or like always, you cherry-picked a few words (_daiva/deva _vs _ahura/asura_) to generalize the whole religious terminology so to confirm your beliefs? I'm not an expert in this field, but all other common generic religious words I know (around 30 words) are similar, if not exact, between the two languages. So, they usually (90%+) agree in meanings.


CyrusSH said:


> It would be strange that you believed another thing, I didn't know the names of ancient Persian kings had Sanskrit origin!!


I was referring to how Rawlinson in 1830s began to decipher the meanings of OP cuniforms at Behistun. He initially used Sanskrit to translate it (because he believe Avestan was not that ancient to be useful, let alone modern Persian). By the way, please stop projecting false accusations to make your argument look more legit. Nobody claimed anything of Sanskrit origin here (though as another fun fact: Persian king names do mean similar in Sanskrit with considering the sound changes: Darius: _dhara+vasu, _Artaxerxes:_ ṛta+kśatra,_ Xerxes: _kśaya+ṛśi_).

Back to the topic, we have a Germanic word with a decent PIE etymology and cognates in other IE branches. There is no need to look in other places.


----------



## CyrusSH

It is possible that _b-r-q_ is an early loanword from PIE but the Germanic word was reborrowed from Akkadian, in fact the word in a PIE dialect is this Akkadian word.


----------



## Treaty

Why are you so obsessed with a non-native etymology for *_berxtaz _? There are several PIE words ending with voiced velar/palatal which ended as *_x _before *_t _in Germanic (e.g. _*sag > *saxtaz, *ieu-g > *juxtaz, *(s)lei-g > *slixtaz, *ṷreĝh > *wrextjanan_). The change of PIE *_bherĝ+tos _into *_berxtaz_ is normal. As for _b-r-q_ being a PIE loan, this is also improbable. *_bherĝ _ended with a palatal voiced consonant while proto-Semitic _b-r-q_ ended with voiceless velar/glottal. Considering they were roughly from a same time, why should PS use [q] when it at least had the much closer [g]?


----------



## berndf

Treaty said:


> Back to the topic, we have a Germanic word with a decent PIE etymology and cognates in other IE branches. There is no need to look in other places.


I agree, that is all there is to say.


----------



## jimquk

CyrusSH said:


> It is possible that _b-r-q_ is an early loanword from PIE but the Germanic word was reborrowed from Akkadian, in fact the word in a PIE dialect is this Akkadian word.



In fact it's *possible* that the word "bark" is a borrowing from Arabic barak, referring to the thunder of the dog's noise, or the brightness of its bared teeth. Possible, but implausible. 

Honestly, I don't know why you guys indulge this nonsense.


----------



## CyrusSH

Treaty said:


> Why are you so obsessed with a non-native etymology for *_berxtaz _? There are several PIE words ending with voiced velar/palatal which ended as *_x _before *_t _in Germanic (e.g. _*sag > *saxtaz, *ieu-g > *juxtaz, *(s)lei-g > *slixtaz, *ṷreĝh > *wrextjanan_). The change of PIE *_bherĝ+tos _into *_berxtaz_ is normal. As for _b-r-q_ being a PIE loan, this is also improbable. *_bherĝ _ended with a palatal voiced consonant while proto-Semitic _b-r-q_ ended with voiceless velar/glottal. Considering they were roughly from a same time, why should PS use [q] when it at least had the much closer [g]?



The problem is **bherĝ*, it couldn't be changed to _brāz_ (with long /ā/) in Persian/Avestan, compare to Persian _marz_, _varz_, _barz_ and etc.

I think palatovelar is more similar to uvular, this palatovelar consonant has been also changed in the most of IE languages, why they didn't change to just velar?


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> The problem is **bherĝ*, it couldn't be changed to _brāz_ (with long /ā/) in Persian/Avestan, compare to Persian _marz_, _varz_, _barz_ and etc.


Why are we talking about Persian again. We learned already in #7 that it is irrelevant because it is probably from a different root.


----------



## CyrusSH

berndf said:


> Why are we talking about Persian again. We learned already in #7 that it is irrelevant because it is probably from a different root.



I myself said the same thing in my initial post but why you agree that we have a Germanic word with a decent PIE etymology and cognates in other IE branches?!!


----------



## ahvalj

CyrusSH said:


> I myself said the same thing in my initial post but why you agree that we have a Germanic word with a decent PIE etymology and cognates in other IE branches?!!


The Germanic word does have a decent PIE etymology and cognates in other IE branches:

Common Germanic _*ƀerxtaz_ "bright" (_Kroonen G · 2013 · Etymological dictionary of Proto-Germanic:_ 60);

Common Celtic _*berxtos_ "bright, beautiful" (_Matasović R · 2009 · Etymological dictionary of Proto-Celtic: _63–64);

earlier Common Slavic _*berstas_ "elm", _*bersta~*berstā_ "birch bark" (_Этимологический словарь славянских языков. Праславянский лексический фонд. Выпуск 1 (A–besědьlivъ) · 1974: _197–200; _Derksen R · 2008 · Etymological dictionary of the Slavic inherited lexicon: _37–38).​
The Celtic word rather points to *_bʰergʲ⁽ʰ⁾tos, _since Celtic preserves laryngeals in such cases.

The Germanic word can go back both to *_bʰergʲ⁽ʰ⁾tos _and *_bʰerhₑgʲ⁽ʰ⁾tos, _as post-tonic laryngeals within roots are regularly lost in Germanic.

I couldn't find reliable information about the prosody of the Slavic words: overall, they seem to reflect a recessive root vowel (accentual paradigm c: Russian _бе́рест/bérest _"elm", _береста́/berestá _"birch bark", Czech _břest _and _břesta_ with a shortened vowel), which allows any of the above variants, with or without the laryngeal or _gʲ _(since the recessive acute merges with the recessive non acute in Slavic into what is called the Slavic circumflex intonation).

The Slavic etymological dictionary (p. 198) notes that the presence of forms of all three genders (Russian _berest, beresta, beresto_) seems to be clear indication of the original adjectival character of these Slavic nouns.

So, if someone finds an explanation of the Celtic lack of _a<*ə<*hₑ_ (i. e. why not _**beraxtos_), these words can be derived from the same root as the Indic and Iranic verbs (and perhaps the word _birch_). In any case, the Slavic _s_ implies an earlier palatovelar and hence in all probability an older Indo-European origin of this word: the late loan would most probably have a plain velar.


----------



## eamp

I would say the relationship between the Indo-Iranian verbs and the Germanic adjective is indeed not trivial, though they are usually assumed to be connected.
First of all _bʰereĝ _is an outdated reconstruction, roots of this shape are generally not posited for PIE anymore.
For skt. _bhrājate _etc. LIV reconstructs a root _bʰrehₑĝ_, which is then further linked to the word for birch *_bʰrHĝó_- > skt. _bhūrjá_-. This word also shows an unexpected full grad in the "wrong" spot in Germanic and Balto-Slavic, eng. _birch_, lit. _béržas _etc. going back to something like *_bʰer(H)ĝ_-.

How exactly PG *_berhtaz _relates is then not quite certain, though the ablaut of the root could have been innovated within Germanic as e/o grades *_brēk/brōk _vs. zero grade *_burk_ would appear quite irregular. Leveling into *_brēk/brōk/brak _and/or *_berk/bark/burk _is therefore not unexpected.
The relevant type of formation, with full grade and t-suffix, seems to have been somewhat productive for adjectives in Germanic e.g.: *_tenk-tos _> *_þīhtaz _> _tight_, *_hₑlengʷʰ-tos_ > *_līhtaz _> _light _(weight), W-Gmc. *_leuk-tos_ > *_leuhtaz _> _light _(bright).

Another wrinkle could be that the Germanic word has a potential exact formal match in Celtic *_berxtos _> Middle Welsh _berth _"beautiful; rich", which seems to exclude a root with laryngeal, however, continuing something like *_bherK-tos_, _K_ = unknown velar.
Albanian _bardhë "_white" is also easier derived from a root without laryngeal like *_bʰerĝ(ʰ)_. 
One could posit laryngeal loss in all cases, but that doesn't explain why there should have been an old full grade *_bʰerhₑĝ _besides *_bʰrehₑĝ _in the first place.

So I would say, while the word does not have a 100% settled etymology, there are enough plausible IE connections as to make recent non-IE origin rather unlikely.


----------



## CyrusSH

So proto-Germanic *_berxtaz_ has no cognate in other IE languages?


----------

