# Origin of the Greek word logos, Indo-European or Semitic?



## Cilquiestsuens

_Hello to everyone,_

I am under the impression that the Greek word *logos*, may be a loanword from semitic languages. (Cf. this thread).

My question is : 

Is this word related to any known Indo-European root, and how many words related to *logos* exist in 1) Other Indo-European languages. 2) Ancient Greek itself ?

Thanks in advance for your help!


----------



## Forero

English has a lot of words with this Indoeuropean root, mostly from Latin (lecture, legend, legible, elect, select, lignite, legal, loyal, legacy, etc.) and Greek (Logos, catalog, eclectic, logarithm, etc.).  The English word _leech_ might derive from the same root.


----------



## Cilquiestsuens

Forero said:


> English has a lot of words with this Indoeuropean root, mostly from Latin (lecture, legend, legible, elect, select, lignite, legal, loyal, legacy, etc.) and Greek (Logos, catalog, eclectic, logarithm, etc.). The English word _leech_ might derive from the same root.


 
Thank you for your reply.

What Indo-European root is it? ... I'm sorry if I was not clear enough, but I was not asking about words derived from the word _*logos.*_

_*As for the other words, let’s have a closer look at them…*_

*Lecture, legend, select and elect* come through Old French from the Latin verb _*Legere*_ (= to read)... Is this really the same root as *logos* ??? I don't think so... meaning wise... _*legere *_means originally to pick up, to gather, to collect.... hence, its meaning to pick up with the eyes (= to read)

*Legible, legal, loyal* are also French and originally latin *Lex, Legis* (Law, lawful in Latin)… here once more, I don’t see any connection….

*Legacy *is also Old French from Latin *Legare* (to bequeath in Latin), and I think somehow it must be connected to the previous roots (both *lex, legis & legere*), once more no connection, in my opinion.

As far as lignite and leech are concerned, I don’t know…. But I doubt.


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


Cilquiestsuens said:


> What Indo-European root is it? ...


 The PIE root is *leg- (older PIE leg^). "Derivatives include _*leech*, lecture, legend, intelligent, sacrilege, loyal,_ and _logic._ " 
Logos is based on the o-grade of the PIE root.



> *Lecture, legend, select and elect* come through Old French from the Latin verb _*Legere*_ (= to read)... Is this really the same root as *logos*???



Yes. The Latin words are all related to Latin _legere_ "to gather, choose, pluck, read", as you mentioned before, and that Latin word goes back to PIE *leg-. 




> *Legible, legal, loyal* are also French and originally latin *Lex, Legis* (Law, lawful in Latin)… here once more, I don’t see any connection...



When talking about the etymology of words, the connection is not necessarily (often not, not often,...) in the meaning of the (later / modern day) cognates, but in the formal aspects of the words. 
[Many 'spectacular' examples can be given: French blanc (white) and English 'black' do go back to the same PIE root]

But all the words mentioned above go back to the same PIE root *leg-...
The various processes (word formation, sound changes, etc.) are fairly well described in any historical phonological manuals of the languages concerned, but (quite obviously) not explained in an etymological dictionary.
 
Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## wonderment

Frank06 said:


> The PIE root is *leg- (older PIE leg^). "Derivatives include _*leech*, lecture, legend, intelligent, sacrilege, loyal,_ and _logic._ "
> Logos is based on the o-grade of the PIE root...
> 
> ...But all the words mentioned above go back to the same PIE root *leg-...



Hi: That's not necessarily the case. Lewis and Short propose a different derivation for _lex_ (Latin for ‘law’): “perh. Sanscr. root lag-, lig-, to fasten; Lat. ligo, to bind, oblige; cf. religio” (source). So for this set of words, we’re really looking at two different verbs in Latin derived from different *PIE roots:

_lego, legere _(from PIE *leg): to select, gather, survey, read --> --> lecture, legend, legible, selec, elect
_ligo, ligare_ (from PIE *lig): to bind, harness, connect, unite; this verb is cognate with _lex, legis_ (law) --> --> legal, legacy, loyal, sacrilege, religion 

In any case, Ancient Greek_ logos_ is cognate with Latin _lego_, from the same PIE root, *leg.


----------



## Probo

Mi escaso inglés no me permite hablar de algo tan técnico en esa lengua. Usaré el español. Wonderment o algún otro pueden traducirme, si os parece interesante.

No creo que se pueda hablar de la raíz *leg- o *log- o *lig-. De hecho y con reservas en relación a *lig-, creo que se trata de la misma raíz (<*lg-) que presenta grados vocálicos distintos: gr. λόγος/λέγω son manifestaciones de la misma raíz con distintinto grado vocálico. El caso del latín_ ligare _es más confuso para mí. Hace años que dejé mis estudios de fonética histórica, pero no me parece que -i sea solución para una raíz de grado cero. Arriesgando en mi ignorancia diría que es simplemente una evolución (apofonía) de la raíz *lg en grado e (>*leg). No conozco nada de las lenguas semíticas, pero sí recuerdo cómo en lingüística comparativa nos hablaban de una relación ancestral entre indo-europeo y semítico que se remontarían a una lengua común llamada _nostrático._ ¿Cómo es esta raíz en las lenguas semíticas? Saludos.


----------



## Aoyama

To take the example of Hebrew, a Semitic language among others, logos (λόγος/word) is DAVAR, which can also mean "thing".
From the root DVR (or DBR, because V=B) you have :
MEDABER = to speak, talk
MITBAR = desert (because this is where G.od spoke to Moses and gave him the Ten Commandments (DIBROT, from DIBRA, same root as DABER/DAVAR).
So here, no link whatsoever with logos.
But then, there is the Hebrew word _lashon_ for tongue (the organ and its "role" = +- word), which starts with L ...


----------



## Forero

Probo said:


> Mi escaso inglés no me permite hablar de algo tan técnico en esa lengua. Usaré el español. Wonderment o algún otro pueden traducirme, si os parece interesante.
> 
> No creo que se pueda hablar de la raíz *leg- o *log- o *lig-. De hecho y con reservas en relación a *lig-, creo que se trata de la misma raíz (<*lg-) que presenta grados vocálicos distintos: gr. λόγος/λέγω son manifestaciones de la misma raíz con distintinto grado vocálico. El caso del latín_ ligare _es más confuso para mí. Hace años que dejé mis estudios de fonética histórica, pero no me parece que -i sea solución para una raíz de grado cero. Arriesgando en mi ignorancia diría que es simplemente una evolución (apofonía) de la raíz *lg en grado e (>*leg). No conozco nada de las lenguas semíticas, pero sí recuerdo cómo en lingüística comparativa nos hablaban de una relación ancestral entre indo-europeo y semítico que se remontarían a una lengua común llamada _nostrático._ ¿Cómo es esta raíz en las lenguas semíticas?
> 
> Translation: I don't believe one can speak of the root *leg- or *log- or *lig-.  In fact, and with reservations in relation to *lig-, I think it's a matter of the same root (<*lg-), coming in different vowel grades: Gk. λόγος/λέγω are manifestations of the same root in different grades.  The case of Latin _ligare_ is more confusing to me.  I did my historical phonetics studies years ago, but it doesn't seem to me that -i is a reflex of a zero-grade root.  Taking a risk in my ignorance, I'd say it is simply a reflex (apophony) of the root *lg in e-grade (>*leg).  I'm really not familiar with Semitic languages, but I do remember how in Comparative Linguistics  they spoke to us about an ancestral relationship between Indo-european and Semitic where they would go back to a common language called _Nostratic_.  What is this root in Semitic languages?
> 
> Saludos.


One common theory is that _lex_ (as in _legal_ and _legislate_) and _legare _(as in _allege_ and _delegate_) are reflexes of the lengthened e grade of *leg.

The other theory says they are reflexes of the different root *leig (zero grade in Latin _ligare_, to bind, as in _oblige_, _ally_, and _religion_).

I think the Nostratic theory has been for the most part debunked, but Indoeuropean and Semitic languages do seem to share some features (not word roots, but things like adding endings and changing vowels to make various tenses and for plurals, etc.) that remind me of a Sprachbund.  

I also think it is remarkable that Spanish has adopted far more words from Arabic than from Basque.  The Ladino language fits Hebrew and  Arabic  words, and a few other features, into an essentially Latinate sentence structure as a unified language, and Yiddish fits Hebrew into German patterns quite seamlessly.


----------



## Macnas

Aoyama said:


> To take the example of Hebrew, a Semitic language among others, logos (λόγος/word) is DAVAR, which can also mean "thing".
> From the root DVR (or DBR, because V=B) you have :
> MEDABER = to speak, talk
> MITBAR = desert (because this is where G.od spoke to Moses and gave him the Ten Commandments (DIBROT, from DIBRA, same root as DABER/DAVAR).
> So here, no link whatsoever with logos.
> But then, there is the Hebrew word _lashon_ for tongue (the organ and its "role" = +- word), which starts with L ...



A few corrections.

First of all, Hebrew _midbar_ "desert" does not come from the same root as _davar_ or _medaber_. It comes from root that happens to be homophonous, meaning "destroy" or "desolate", so _midbar_ originally meant "place of desolation" (compare _dever_ "plague").

Secondly, just because the old Hebrew word for "word" (in modern Hebrew it's _milah_) doesn't begin with L doesn't prove anything. Words change their meanings over time, so there's no reason to assume that a hypothetical Semitic cognate to logos would have the same meaning. Just look how far the meaning of PIE *leg- has drifted in the various Indo-European languages already mentioned.


----------



## Aoyama

Right for mi*d*bar.
Right also for another word , milah, meaning ...word, though the word is, as you mentioned, recent.
For the link between midbar and davar or dever, it is debatable. It should require another thread.


----------



## wonderment

I don’t know the Proto-Semitic roots for these words, but for comparison here are examples from Syriac (an ancient Semitic language, a dialect of Aramaic):

LESHANA m., tongue (the organ), language

EMAR to say or tell
MEMRA m., sermon, word

MELLTA (singular) MELLE (plural) word, thing, event. MELLTA translates ὁ λόγος  of New Testament Greek. The gender of the Syriac word is feminine in the singular, and masculine in the plural. The –TA ending in MELLTA is the feminine marker of nouns. MELLTA is normally feminine, but when it translates ὁ λόγος it is masculine (for Christ).


----------



## Cilquiestsuens

Bumping.

I wanted also to settle once and for all the case of the Arabic word _*lughah*_.

I am not sure if this question has been satisfactorily answered in any other thread.

Is this a proper Semitic root (no equivalent in Hebrew, it seems, what about Akkadian, Ge'ez or Aramaic?) or a borrowing from Greek???

In Arabic there is the root *laghw =  lam-ghain-waw*... But I am not sure it is connected to *lughah.*..

Any lights???


----------



## Abu Rashid

Cilquiestsuens said:
			
		

> Is this a proper Semitic root (no equivalent in Hebrew, it seems, what about Akkadian, Ge'ez or Aramaic?) or a borrowing from Greek???



The idea that some people have that because a verb exists in Arabic yet not in other Semitic languages, therefore it must be a borrowing (usually it's claimed from Greek) is a pretty flawed one.

There's a few issues to consider:
Arabic is the most widely used and best recorded of the Semitic languages, which means it has many times more known verbs than any other Semitic language. This means that many Arabic verbs simply won't be known in other Semitic languages, because other Semitic languages weren't preserved as well. Hebrew for instance is mostly preserved in the Bible and related writings (Ugaritic, Phoenician, Akkadian, Sabaic etc. were preserved in even fewer records). At the end of the Biblical period Hebrew largely fell into disuse, and what is spoken today is a reconstructed language. There's many nouns for instance in Hebrew of which we have no written record of the verb it derives from.

For example the Hebrew word for throat לֹעַ is a word which looks promising as a Hebrew cognate. It is derived from the verb לוּעַ (meaning to swallow) which has an alternate spelling where the ayin and waw are juxtaposed, which would make it effectively lam-ayin-waw (In Hebrew ghayin merged into ayin just before the Christian period, so all roots with ghayin in them today have become ayin).



> In Arabic there is the root laghw = lam-ghain-waw... But I am not sure it is connected to lughah..



Yes this verb means to speak and is most likely where the word stems from.


----------



## berndf

Abu Rashid said:


> Arabic is the most widely used and best recorded of the Semitic languages, which means it has many times more known verbs than any other Semitic language. This means that many Arabic verbs simply won't be known in other Semitic languages, because other Semitic languages weren't preserved as well. Hebrew for instance is mostly preserved in the Bible and related writings (Ugaritic, Phoenician, Akkadian, Sabaic etc. were preserved in even fewer records). At the end of the Biblical period Hebrew largely fell into disuse, and what is spoken today is a reconstructed language. There's many nouns for instance in Hebrew of which we have no written record of the verb it derives from.


You forgot the most influential Semitic language prior to the rise of Islam: Aramaic. But essentially I agree with you.



Abu Rashid said:


> For example the Hebrew word for throat לֹעַ is a word which looks promising as a Hebrew cognate. It is derived from the verb לוּעַ (meaning to swallow).


The verbal root is לעע and not לוע but never mind, both are hinting towards a two-letter proto-root לע* (where ע can of course be both, etymological ayin or ghayin).


----------



## Abu Rashid

berndf said:
			
		

> You forgot the most influential Semitic language prior to the rise of Islam: Aramaic.



Well I didn't mention it, as it doesn't fit the point I was making 
Yes Aramaic was influential and we have a lot of knowledge about it, but it still has nowhere near as many roots as Arabic has.



			
				berndf said:
			
		

> The verbal root is לעע and not לוע but never mind



Gesenius lists it as deriving from לוע (also juxtaposed sometimes as לעו) or לעה both of which fit the possibility of being cognates to the Arabic root ل-غ-و.



			
				berndf said:
			
		

> where ע can of course be both, etymological ayin or ghayin



As there doesn't seem to be any cognates with ayin, I'd be leaning towards ghayin.


----------



## berndf

Abu Rashid said:


> Well I didn't mention it, as it doesn't fit the point I was making


An omission which weakens your point. As I agree by and large, I wanted to put this right.


Abu Rashid said:


> Gesenius list it as deriving from לוע (also juxtaposed sometimes as לעו) or לעה both of which fit the possibility of being cognates to the Arabic root ل-غ-و.


Ok, maybe. The verb is very rare; II-waw and geminate verbs have many forms in common. In Hiob 6:3 you find לָעוּ (_they swallowed_) which fits both patterns and both patterns are most likely extensions of two-letter proto-roots. For identifying cognates, the difference probably doesn't matter.


----------



## Abu Rashid

berndf said:
			
		

> An omission which weakens your point.



Not really, since the simple fact is that Arabic still has by and large the biggest repertoire of verbal roots amongst the Semitic languages, yet for some strange reason people seem to continually question each and every Arabic verb as being a probable loan from European languages.



			
				berndf said:
			
		

> and both patterns are most likely extensions of two-letter proto-roots



I think the concept of proto-roots is an interesting one, but is by no means an accepted one.


----------



## berndf

*<Off-topic remark deleted>*



Abu Rashid said:


> I think the concept of proto-roots is an interesting one, but is by no means an accepted one.


In Hebrew two-letter (proto-)roots definitely play a role. Whether they are reflexes of hypothetical (Pre-)Proto-Semitic two-letter roots or if there was a process of mergers of weak verb resulting in the loss of a radical with subsequent re-differentiation is an entirely different matter. I might be wrong but as I see it, לעע and לוע would be considered as most likely etymologically related and Waw as a centre radical of little etymological relevance.


----------



## berndf

Abu Rashid said:


> ...yet for some strange reason people seem to continually question each and every Arabic verb as being a probable loan from European languages.


I have no idea whom you mean by "people". Certainly not the participants of this forum. The threads conjecturing PIE origins of Arabic words are extremely limited and the questions have been very reasonable. I should be very grateful, if we could do without such accusations in the future.


----------



## Abu Rashid

berndf said:
			
		

> I have no idea whom you mean by "people". Certainly not the participants of this forum.



People in general, yes usually posters on WR forums, but not limited to them.



			
				berndf said:
			
		

> I should be very grateful, if we could do without such accusations in the future.



Come on I think you're over-reacting just a tad. I didn't really make any overt accusation, merely mentioned that the line of thought which automatically assumes any Arabic verb to be Greek/Latin in origin if a cognate can't be found in Hebrew is a little inaccurate.


----------



## Aoyama

> (I) merely mentioned that the line of thought which automatically assumes any Arabic verb to be Greek/Latin in origin if a cognate can't be found in Hebrew is a little inaccurate.


 a _little_ inaccurate is an ironic litotes here. People of a wee little bit of learning wouldn't dare tread on this path, and berndf is right in his way to feel a bit angry about your comment, which seems to understate that this is what may happen here (in this forum).
As for Arabic verbs roots, we know that they can be found (or traced) in other languages than Hebrew. Among which Aramaic, Syriac (both close to Hebrew, it's true), probably African languages, and more recently Spanish or even French if not others ...


----------



## Abu Rashid

That is not what that line of discussion was about. It's nothing to do  with whether Arabic has  any borrowed words, all languages do, and it's  certainly not about  "Arabic verb roots being traced to Hebrew and other  languages" (this  statement appears to suggest Arabic is merely made up  of borrowings from Hebrew & other languages too). It's about the  automatic assumption that if a  cognate root doesn't exist in Hebrew or  other Semitic languages, then  it must be borrowed from Greek or Latin.

The reason this automatic assumption is so misguided is that Arabic has   the greatest number of roots _by far_ out of  all the Semitic  languages,  and it's not unusual at all for words to exist in Arabic  that are not  found in the other Semitic languages.


----------



## Cilquiestsuens

Abu Rashid said:


> That is not what that line of discussion was about. It's nothing to do  with whether Arabic has  any borrowed words, all languages do, and it's  certainly not about  "Arabic verb roots being traced to Hebrew and other  languages" (this  statement appears to suggest Arabic is merely made up  of borrowings from Hebrew & other languages too). It's about the  automatic assumption that if a  cognate root doesn't exist in Hebrew or  other Semitic languages, then  it must be borrowed from Greek or Latin.
> 
> The reason this automatic assumption is so misguided is that Arabic has   the greatest number of roots _by far_ out of  all the Semitic  languages,  and it's not unusual at all for words to exist in Arabic  that are not  found in the other Semitic languages.



I do agree with your statement. However I'd like to get back to our main topic instead of debating other issues, however interesting they may be.

Let me do a short recap' if you don't mind.

Is _*logos*_ a word Greek has had from the beginning or did it borrow it from a Semitic language (let's keep in mind that this assumption isn't so far fetched, knowing for instance that the Greeks borrowed their alphabet from the Phoenicians. However, it isn't highly probable neither) ?

So far, nothing has been proven, except maybe that Semitic languages have had this root (_*lam-waw-ghayn / 3ayn*_) for too long to owe it to the Greeks or any Indo-European or historical foreign language.

Now, I was a tad disappointed by the response we got from the experts on the Greek side. Most foreros so far found it sufficient to reply that there was an Indo-European root _*LEG*_- which means something like "_to collect, to gather_" and from which logos must come from, the same root  from which originated the Latin _*LEGERE*_ (= to read). This seems to be proof enough according to every one so far to the Indo-European origin of _*LOGOS*_.

I see a number of flaws in this thinking and let me point them out:

- The Indo-European roots are reconstructed and highly hypothetical. They cannot serve to prove anything in the specific case of one language and one word.

- Now, even if we accept these roots as having some kind of truth or authenticity to them, let's go over the meaning of *LOGOS*. It is 'Speech', I think. So  ''_to gather, to collect_" seems to be good enough and make perfectly sense as the origin of READING. [Interestingly enough, the Arabic root *Qa-Ra-2a* to read, had originally also the meaning of ''_gathering, collecting_'']. I don't see however how it could be connected in any way to the notion of SPEECH, which is a much more primal concept than reading as the human condition necessarily implies speech from the very origins, while reading and writing come much later as a not so essential activity. Speech is therefore expected to have a root (or more than one) of it own in every language, not coming from another root meaning ''to gather, to collect''. 

- Last but not least, nobody bothered to go over the historical process. When does the word *LOGOS* appear for the first time in Greek texts. Does it belong to the vocabulary of the Mycenaean Greek (Linear B language) what about all the languages around Greek, whether Indo-European or not???? Illyrian, Thracian, Old Macedonian, Phoenician, etc... Unfortunately for these ones, I am afraid our knowledge is really limited. However, this is in that direction we should be looking for something if there is anything to be proven either way ever. A hypothetical Indo-European root leaves too many questions unanswered and missing links, and is no proof at all.


----------



## apmoy70

I really don't know if «λόγος» is borrowed from a Semitic language; what I have learnt is that it derives from the PIE root *leg-, _to collect, gather_ and one of the oldest nouns in the Greek language that attest to the above meaning is the Attic «λώγῃ» ('lōgē, _feminine noun_) or «ἐλώγῃ» (ĕ'lōgē, _feminine noun_) in Doric, that both mean _harvest of wheat_


----------



## XiaoRoel

El principal problema para admitir un préstamo semítico es que el griego λόγος pertenece a una raiz IE *leg- (en formaciones nominales *log- y *lēg-) que tiene tal riqueza de uso y tan fundamental significado dentro de las consideradas "instituciones IE más antiguas" (las que son base de la teoría de la revolución laica en el seno de la sociedades IE), que cuesta ver ahí un préstamo. Este grupo significativo en el que el significado es un verbo agrario, cosechar, recoger, recolectar, que a través del sentido de recolectar datos, pasa al mundo de las instituciones (paralelamente a la raíz reg-), el latín lex y rex, dos "palabras raíz" de esta familia nos indica la antigüedad del término. Las lenguas célticas, albanés, latín y griego en occidente e indoiranio en oriente, es decir, los extremos del arco geográfico de las lenguas IE, aportan más elementos que demuestran su antigüedad y que hacen imposible el préstamo semítico.
The main problem to admit a Semitic loan is that the Greek λόγος belongs to an IE root *leg- (nominal formations *log-and *lēg-) that has such a wealth of use and so central meaning within those considered "older IE institutions"(which are based  the theory of a secular revolution within IE societies), which is hard to see it like a loan. This significant group that is a verb meaning 'farming, harvesting, gathering, collecting', which through the sense of collecting data passed to the world of institutions (in parallel to the root reg-), Latin _*Lex*_ and _*Rex*_, two "root words" in this family indicates the length of the term. Celtic languages, albanian, latin and greek in the West and in the East indo-Iranian, ie geographical arc ends of the IE languages, provide more items showing their age and which mean that the loan Semitic.*)

*) Mistranslation; XiaoRoel says in his Spanish post that the loan is in all likeliness _*not*_ Semitic. (sokol, Moderator)


----------



## Frank06

Cilquiestsuens said:


> Now, I was a tad disappointed by the response we got from the experts on the Greek side.


There is no Greek (/(P)IE) side, there is no Arabic(/Semitic) side. Please!



> Most foreros so far found it sufficient to reply that there was an Indo-European root _*LEG*_- which means something like "_to collect, to gather_" and from which logos must come from, the same root  from which originated the Latin _*LEGERE*_ (= to read). This seems to be proof enough according to every one so far to the Indo-European origin of _*LOGOS*_.


And according to most etymologists and historical linguistics dealing with PIE and Greek...



> - The Indo-European roots are reconstructed and highly hypothetical. They cannot serve to prove anything in the specific case of one language and one word.


This seems to imply that you won't accept any kind of explanation which involves PIE. 

Then I can only wish you good luck with your search for evidence to confirm your bias, viz. the Semitic roots of logos. 

Frank


----------



## Cilquiestsuens

Frank06 said:


> There is no Greek (/(P)IE) side, there is no Arabic(/Semitic) side. Please!



I wrote the word 'side' and you understood: 'party', 'lobby'.

What I meant here was 'knowledgeable' about Greek; 'experts'. Unfortunately I don't know much Old Greek, so I thought that I should ask those who are more knowledgeable than me.



Frank06 said:


> And according to most etymologists and historical linguistics dealing with PIE and Greek...
> 
> This seems to imply that you won't accept any kind of explanation which involves PIE.
> Frank



Questioning received ideas is what makes us improve and get better. I was not questioning the Reconstructed Proto-Indo-European theory as a whole. 

Only in specific cases, when it is used to fill gaps, which a reconstructed language can't fill. Do you realize that between attested uses of the word 'logos' and that Proto-Indo-European roots there may be a gap of how much, 1000 years, 2000 years???? I was pointing the finger at this yawning gap, and also at the unconvincing etymology :



apmoy70 said:


> the oldest nouns in the Greek language that attest to the above meaning is the Attic «λώγῃ» ('lōgē, _feminine noun_) or «ἐλώγῃ» (ĕ'lōgē, _feminine noun_) in Doric, that both mean _harvest of wheat_



Thanks apmoy70 for your positive participation and your input by the way. I have learned something from you.

I hope you won't mind the fact that I am not really convinced that ''harvest of wheat'' is a logical etymology for ''speech".

The gap I was talking of remains.




Frank06 said:


> Then I can only wish you good luck with your search for evidence to confirm your bias, viz. the Semitic roots of logos.



If there is a bias, here, it is not mine. This is a working hypothesis. I myself wrote above :



> it isn't highly probable neither


Talking about the chances of logos being a Semitic word. 

You decided to label me pro-Semitic (I am not) and for that reason didn't even bother to read my post well nor pay serious attention to what I was writing. You never bothered to answer the points I was making.

I hope we will have a more scholarly discussion now. There are two ways to delve deeper in this matter and try our working hypothesis or to discard it.

Looking deeper into the Greek etymologies and all the related languages, (including those which have been in contact with Greek). IE or not. It would be interesting to have a look at languages like _Hittite, Luvian_, etc... which were never too far away from the Proto-Greek sphere. [ by looking deeper I mean 1. what word(s) they were using for Speech. 2. If they are IE languages, what words did the LEG root produce in those languages] 

Unfortunately, the Minoan language is not deciphered yet and won't be able to bring any clue.

Phoenician would be the only Semitic language the Greeks have been seriously in contact with. What were the words in the semantic field of ''speech'' in Phoenician ?


----------



## Frank06

Cilquiestsuens said:


> I wrote the word 'side' and you understood: 'party', 'lobby'.


Probably the context of certain previous posts, in which there was some funny whining about picking sides, apparently made me misunderstand your post. If so, my apologies. 



> Questioning received ideas is what makes us improve and get better.


I fully agree with that: questioning theories is a sign of a healthy mind. Though, in the first place, the questioning should not improve us, but should improve the theories. And the questioning should be done on a rational basis, with non-contradictory arguments (see below).



> I was not questioning the Reconstructed Proto-Indo-European theory as a whole. Only in specific cases,


You mean, you pick and choose? That kind of _bricolage_ doesn't really improve a theory.



> when it is used to fill gaps, which a reconstructed language can't fill. Do you realize that between attested uses of the word 'logos' and that Proto-Indo-European roots there may be a gap of how much, 1000 years, 2000 years????


As with *all* reconstructed forms, not just your 'specific cases'. That's what reconstructed PIE forms imply. 'Reconstrucuted PIE forms' is a pleonasm. So, I'll rephrase, that's what PIE is all about. 
Depending on the author, PIE is thought to have started diverging round 4000BC. Now, even if you'd give or take a millenium, that would still leave us, by the very definition of PIE (but depending upon the timeframe one favours), with a gap of _at least_ 1000 years between the proposed timeframe for (reconstructed) PIE and the first (vast) corpora of texts in an IE language. 

I'll put it mildly: please mind the gap!

Otherwise said, less mildly this time: once again, you indicate that contrary to your words, you don't really accept PIE theory. Fine with me, no problem at all. But please stop pretending.



> You decided to label me pro-Semitic (I am not) and for that reason didn't even bother to read my post well nor pay serious attention to what I was writing. You never bothered to answer the points I was making.


I decided to pick the side of historical linguistics a long long time ago and I can only hope you do too. I am not interested in labels. I am interested in coherent, non-contradictory explanations. 

Anyway, as for paying attention: I already gave you the explanation in post 4, with a link, with the underlying proces (o-grade), and with an indication that semantically, a PIE root (which is not a word, let's not forget that!) can give rise to words in various IE languages with very different (and even opposite) meanings.

Your first job is not to look at the semantics, but to comment on why you do not accept the well-described and well-accepted process of the PIE grades, or in our case, the o-grade of *leg- > log(os).

The o-grade could be one of the crucial elements in this explanation: if you'd accept that process, then there aren't many reasons left anymore to doubt that logos < *leg-. It would make a loan from a non-IE language highly impropable.

Of course, you already have a way out here: if the word (or a reflection of the root, or a cognate) cannot be found in x other IE languages, with a weird preference for the ones which are hardly attested (see below), and even non-IE languages (though it beats me why), a PIE derivation is not acceptable (see below for all cognates from all IE languages accepted so far). 



> Mycenaean Greek (Linear B language) what about all the languages around Greek, whether Indo-European or not???? Illyrian, Thracian, Old Macedonian, Phoenician,


I couldn't find any cognate of *leg-/logos in my list of Mycenean Greek words. Not really a surprise, given the small corpus of texts. As far as I know, Illyrian, Tracian, Old Macedonian texts hardly survived. So, if you let the acceptance of a PIE etymology depend upon these languages, then we can close our books.  

Needless to say, that this process doesn't only apply to our word 'logos' alone.

If you do not accept that process, then 'logos' is one of your last concerns, since you'll also have to explain all the other instances of an alleged o-grade in a bunch of other words. 

Now, _that_ would be a scholarly discussion: first, one critiques the mainstream arguments, the o-grade. Then, and only then, you could go on with an alternative.

But you never delved into a scholarly discussion. At least, I take your comment on both accepting PIE "as a whole" and your remarks about 'specific cases' and about a gap of 1/2000 years not very seriously. It's an incredibly big contradiction, and not really a sound basis to question a theory.

Any which way, I guess I am not the only one who'd get really excited when that mainstream view turns out to be incorrect. It would be incredibly interesting and my secret dream is to witness such a major paradigm shift which starts on a message board. 
Sorry, that's irony. I'd love to see it, but in a peer reviewed linguistic journal, of course.



> Looking deeper into the Greek etymologies and all the related languages, (including those which have been in contact with Greek). IE or not. It would be interesting to have a look at languages like _Hittite, Luvian_, etc... which were never too far away from the Proto-Greek sphere. [ by looking deeper I mean 1. what word(s) they were using for Speech. 2. If they are IE languages, what words did the LEG root produce in those languages]


I wonder why you are fixated on the meaning "speech". Even my little dictionary of Classical Greek which used at secundary school clearly indicates that Homeric and Classical Greek 'logos'/légo meant a lot more than just "speech". 
Which makes your remark that you "don't see however how it could be connected in any way to the notion of SPEECH" quite shaky, at best. But, it's not because you don't see it (contrary to a whole linguistic community) that it is wrong. Anyway, you don't have to look for the semantics in the first place, but for the forms. Quite a difference.

For exhaustive information on *leg- (in which * indicates that it's a reconstructed PIE form, so, mind the gap), see below. You'll find cognates in Italic, Greek, Albanian, Germanic, ... what more do you need? Primary texts, so you can look for yourself? Titus project is a good starting point.

As for *leg-
1.http://www.indo-european.nl//index2.html


> Root / lemma: leg^-
> English meaning: to gather
> Material: Gr. λέγω `sammle, lese zusammen, zähle, rede, sage', καταλέγω `verzeichne', συλλογή `Sammlung', ἐκλογή `Auswahl', λόγος, λέξις `Rede', λογίζομαι `rechne, überlege' (auch ἀλέγω ἐν `zähle, rechne unter etwas' mit ἀ- `ἐν-'), λώγη συναγωγη σίτου Hes. , dor. ἐλώγη ἔλεγεν Hes. ;
> lat. legō, -ere `zusammenlesen, auflesen; wählen; lesen', legiō `ausgehobene Mannschaft, Legion' = osk. leginum `legionem', legulus `Aufleser', ēlegāns `wählerisch, geschmackvoll'; hierher wohl auch lignum als `Leseholz'; ferner dīligere (*dis-leg-) `hochschätzen', intellegere (*inter-leg-) `wahrnehmen', neglegere `vernachlässigen', religiō `Bedenken, religiöse Scheu'; pälign. lexe `legistis'.
> 
> Palatal erweist alb. mb-leth `sammle, ernte, versammle', Prät. mblodha  lat. lēgī), Pass. mblidhem;
> 
> zu legō vermutlich auch als `Sammlung der Vorschriften' lat. lēx f. `Gesetz', lēgāre, lēgātus, osk. ligud `lēge', ligatúís `legatis' und legūmen `Hülsenfrucht, Gemüse';
> 
> germ. *lēkja- `Besprecher, Arzt' in got. lēkeis, aisl. lǣknir, ags. lǣce, ahd. lāchi; dazu ahd. lāchin n. `Heilung', mhd. lāchenīe f. `Besprechen, Hexen'; ksl. lěkъ `Heilmittel' aus dem Germ. ; über air. liaig s. unter lep-1.
> 
> References: WP. II 422, WH. 351 ff. , 779 f. , 789 f.
> Page(s): 658


2. http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/main.cgi?root=config


> Meaning: to gather
> Old Greek: légō, -omai̯, aor. léksai, -asthai̯, elégmǟn (Hom.), lékto (Hom.), ps. lekhthē̂nai̯, pf. lélegmai̯, di-ẹ̄́legmai̯, sün-ẹ̄́lokha `auflesen, sammeln; zählen, auf-, erzählen', logǟ́ f. `Berücksichtigung, Art', lógo-s m. `das Berechnen, Rechenschaft, Berechnung, Ansehen, Grund, Vernunft; das Sprechen, Rede, Wort, Erzählung, Schrift', léksi-s f. `Rede, Redeweise, Stil, (besonderes ) Wort', lṓgǟ f. `kalámǟ, kài sünagōgḕ sítou' (Hsch.), lōgáō <elṓgē = élegen> (Hsch.)
> Latin: legō, -ere, lēgī, lēctum `auflesen, zusammenlesen, sammeln (flōrēs, ossa etc.); auslesen, auswählen; durchlaufen, entlanggehen; lesen', legiō, -ōnis f. `ausgehobene Mannschaft, Legion', legulus, -ī m. `Aufleser, Sammler', ēlegāns `wählerisch, geschmackvoll'
> Other Italic: Osk leginum `legiōnem', Paelign lexe `legistis ?'
> Albanian: mbĺeɵ `sammle, ernte, versammle', prt. mbĺođa, pass. bmĺiđem
> References: WP II 422


----------



## sokol

Hello guys,

we're obviously running in circles, and honestly I don't really see any need to discuss this further. Whoever thinks we should - please contact a moderator of this forum and we _might_ consider re-opening.

Honestly, I feel all has been said already by XiaoRoel's latest post in this thread.

This thread is now closed.
Thank you all for your contributions, and for your understanding.

Cheers
sokol
moderator EHL


----------

