# PIE *bherg- and *bhergo



## terredepomme

Are *bherg-(height, cf. Eng. berg) and *bhergo(protect, cf. Rus. беречь) any related?


----------



## Ben Jamin

terredepomme said:


> Are *bherg-(height, cf. Eng. berg) and *bhergo(protect, cf. Rus. беречь) any related?



I don’t think English ‘berg’ and Russian ‘беречь’ are related, but Scandinavian “berge” (to save) is ertainly related to ‘беречь’. 
‘Berg’ is related to Russian ‘bereg’ (rand, riverbank, seashore).


----------



## berndf

Ben Jamin said:


> I don’t think English ‘berg’ and Russian ‘беречь’ are related...


On what grounds?


----------



## Ben Jamin

berndf said:


> On what grounds?



Well, it was a too hasty statement. I knew the relation between “berge” and‘беречь’, and between "berg" ened "берег", but I didn't know the relation between "berge" and "berg". I found the explanation however in the Grimms' dictionary:  "bergan" meant to save something to the shore, hence it is related. The relation, however, is not direct:  ‘беречь’ is related to "berge/bergan", and the latter is related to "berg".


----------



## berndf

Ben Jamin said:


> ...but I didn't know the relation between "berge" and "berg". I found the explanation however in the Grimms' dictionary:  "bergan" meant to save something to the shore, hence it is related.


I am not sure; that's why I asked. The meanings of the verb stem -_berg-_ in German range from _recover_ via _rescue_ and _protect _to _conceal_. All of these meaning have an obvious connection to _беречь_. From the attested history of Germanic languages I can't see a way to decide, if the verb stem _-berg-_ and the noun stem_ berg-_ (_=mountain_) are cognate of just the result of a phonological merger. Germanic /g/ can be derived from PIE /g'h/ or from PIE /gh/.


----------



## Ben Jamin

berndf said:


> I am not sure; that's why I asked. The meanings of the verb stem -_berg-_ in German range from _recover_ via _rescue_ and _protect _to _conceal_. All of these meaning have an obvious connection to _беречь_. From the attested history of Germanic languages I can't see a way to decide, if the verb stem _-berg-_ and the noun stem_ berg-_ (_=mountain_) are cognate of just the result of a phonological merger. Germanic /g/ can be derived from PIE /g'h/ or from PIE /gh/.


You don't buy the Grimms' explanation?


----------



## berndf

Ben Jamin said:


> You don't buy the Grimms' explanation?


He argues with Adelung whether_ bergen _is derived from _Berg _(Adelung) or_ Berg_ from_ bergen_ (Grimm). But neither of them discuss the possibility that the two might be unrelated. I find this not entirely satisfactory.


----------



## Dhira Simha

I also believe that  Rus. bereg "bank, shore"  and beregti "to preserve" are related. This is how this word appears in the _Russian-Sanskrit Dictionary of Common and Cognate Words_




*52*
*берег
*byeryeh byerega*bhṛ
**भृ*
 beregbank, shoreto bear, carry, convey, holdTraditionally, this word is linked to  the SA bṛhat बृहत् ‘large, lofty, high, tall, great, large, wide’  and   the Avestan berezô (berez) 'high, great, lofty' (Vasmer, I, 153) on the  basis of its supposed relation to the GER berg ‘mountain’. Semantically,  such parallel is rather dubious. On the other hand, there is a more  obvious similarity with the RU беречь bereč  ‘to protect, guard’ so the  actual SA cognate root scold be bhṛ भृ meaning ‘to bear, contain,  possess, have, keep; to carry off or along’. One can imagine river banks  as containing the waters and carrying them along. They could also be  viewed as protecting people from water, which was often considered  deadly (see море more). If one looks at the etymology of берег bereg  from this angle - its connection with the verb беречь bereč ‘to bear,  contain, possess, have, keep; to carry off or along; to protect, guard,  take care of’ becomes logical.  Cp. also the dialectal RU берёга berёga  'care, protection'. See беречь bereč. UA бе́рег; BG брегъ; SRB бриjег;  SLO brėg; CZ břeh; SK breh; PL brzeg; U.LS brjóh; L.LS brjog. N 3


----------



## Ben Jamin

How strange that the connection between the two words should develop independently both in Russian and Germanic.


----------



## aruniyan

Ben Jamin said:


> How strange that the connection between the two words should develop independently both in Russian and Germanic.



Remove this post if its some sort of novel theory, but like to bring in three Tamil root words that are interesting.

*peRu*, peRiya, peRuku - Big, Large, Increase etc...

*peru*, Perra, perrOr - Receive,Possess, Parents(those who receives)

*pira* - Birth


peRu(large)-noun and peru(Receive,Possess)-Verb.


----------



## Dhira Simha

These words appear to relate to the verb *peRu-tal * "to get, obtain, secure, possess; to bring forth, bear as children; to be get, generate"  so the meanings "peRu, peRiya, peRuku - Big, Large, Increase etc "  are probably secondary  following the logic: to bring forth, bear > grow > increase > became large > large. It is is an interesting fact but  Tamil being non-Indo-Aryan any  similarity should be treated with caution. A good example is the Skr. _moraka_ "the milk of a cow seven days after calving" which sounds exactly like Rus. _ moloko_ "milk" (r/l interchange is common on Skr.) but, in fact,  it has nothing to do with it. It is off-topic, but as an exercise, try to explain why. If you are proficient in Tamil you will see the reason.


----------



## arsham

Classical Persian has borz meaning height from the same root as boland meaning high. Middle Persian has the superrelative bâlist meaning highest in addition to the aforesaid forms!


----------



## Dhira Simha

arsham said:


> Classical Persian has borz meaning height from the same root as boland meaning high. Middle Persian has the superlative bâlist meaning highest in addition to the aforesaid forms!


 Sorry,  I do not quite see to which of the earlier posts it refers. Are you sure  these three  Persian forms relate to the same root?  My first impulse  would be to associate "borz meaning height" with Skr. varṣiman 'height, top' and Rus. вершина veršina  having the same meaning.  Both relate to the root vṛh वृह् (more often having the form of bṛh बृह्) 'increase, expand, further' that is directly cognate with vṛdh वृध् ‘to grow up, to rise, to elevate’ and the RU верх verx ‘top’. The other two words, you quoted  may be related to Skr. bala "power, strength, might". In the cognate Rus. boljš  the meaning has shifted more towards "big"  and, in some contexts, "tall". It appears directly related to bâlist  and both words are connected with the ancient superlative suffix *-*iṣṭha. I doubt that any of these have  relation to  PIE *bherg- and *bhergo.


----------



## fdb

These words belong to *bherg-. –rg- becomes –rh- in Sanskrit,  –rz- in proto-Iranian, -rd- in Old Persian, -l- in Middle and New Persian. Thus we have Avestan barǝz- in ablaut with bǝrǝz- ‘high’, barǝzah- ‘mountain’, Persian buland ‘high’, bālā ‘height’, bālist ‘highest’ etc. burz ‘high’ is a non-Persian (Parthian) loanword in Persian.


----------



## arsham

fdb said:


> These words belong to *bherg-. –rg- become –rh- in Sanskrit, –rz- in proto-Iranian, -rd- in Old Persian, -l- in Middle and New Persian. Thus we have Avestan barǝz- in ablaut with bǝrǝz- ‘high’, barǝzah- ‘mountain’, Persian buland ‘high’, bālā ‘height’, bālist ‘highest’ etc. burz ‘high’ is a non-Persian (Parthian) loanword in Persian.


I second this thorough explanation. The Middle Persian form of bâlâ is bâlây and burz in shahnâmeh is always used as a noun!


----------



## Dhira Simha

As I said, I am not an expert in Persian so  I may accept your explanation of bālā ‘height’.  However, there are some questions: what would be the Slavonic reflex of -rg- ?  How does Skr. varṣiman  'height, top' and Rus. вершина veršina fit here and how  do they relate  to bereg "bank, shore" and beregti "to take care of, to spare"? Also the  interchange  x - š is common in Slavonic but  I never met it in  Sanskrit.  Skr. /h/ is  normally preserved before /i/. Why did it have  to change to -ṣ- in varṣiman and even in varṣman?  If we apply RUKI law (_*s_ > _*š_ (ʃ) > _*x_.)  then we should consider  the original form * brs/vrs because we know of  now examples of  /h/ going to /s/ in Sanskrit. How does this tie up  with your presumed "–rg- become –rh- in Sanskrit"?  The words varṣiman  and varṣman are the only link between the notions of "height"  and the  cardinal meaning of  bṛh "to grow thick, increase".  I can see the  connection varṣiman - barǝzah - veršina   but  how does the hypothetical  *bherg fit in here? I would really like to understand this.


----------



## fdb

Iranian *bṛz- : *barz , Avestan bǝrǝz- : barǝz- are cognate with Skt. bṛhat- , barh-aya-, from IE. *bherg-, with bh- > b- according to Grassmann’s law.


----------



## Dhira Simha

Does this effectively mean that  the  true reflex of IE -rg  in Skr. is -rs  and not -rh?  With RUKI law  it would become -rṣ   but how does the /h/ in  bṛh  fits here?  The change of š  to h (x) is specific to Slavonic, as far as I know.


----------



## fdb

Dhira Simha said:


> Does this effectively mean that  the  true reflex of IE -rg  in Skr. is -rs  and not -rh?  With RUKI law  it would become -rṣ   but how does the /h/ in  bṛh  fits here?  The change of š  to h (x) is specific to Slavonic, as far as I know.


No, it does not mean this at all. The Skt. words with ṣ do not belong to this root.


----------



## Dhira Simha

fdb said:


> No, it does not mean this at all. The Skt. words with ṣ do not belong to this root.


   It looks as an _ad hoc_ solution to me.  Avestan _bar__ǝ__zah, bar__ǝ__ziman_ and _bar__ǝ__zišta_  are considered relating to _b__ṛ__h_  but  Skr. _var__ṣ__iman_ which exactly coincides  in form and meaning with _bar__ǝ__ziman_  should not be related  because it just does not fit? Interestingly,  a form _varhiman_ 'height, top, surface, uttermost part' was attested in RV. as well and it is believed to be a duplicate of _var__ṣ__iman_. Now, _varh-_  here  looks suspiciously  close to _vrh/bṛh_. In fact, the  _guṇa_ form of _vrh _would be exacly_ varh._ I do not think you have a ready answer, I just wanted to say that things could be more complicated that it appears.


----------



## berndf

Dhira Simha said:


> It looks as an _ad hoc_ solution to me....


Coming back to the original question, we have the Germanic stem _berg- _which according to Grimm's law should have the PIE etymon _*bherg- _plus we find probably Slavic cognates (discussed above) and now we are presented with an Iranian root with the same presumptive etymon. If the other Russian and Sanskrit words you threw into the discussion belong to the same group or not might be interesting but without further proof that the entire group should be derived from a completely different root the is not essential to the question here.

There are two semantic ranges for this group: _Hill/mountain/top/high_ on the one hand and _protect/cover/bring ashore/shore_ on the other hand. The question that was asked was if these ranges originate from a single meaning and a single etymon or if those are distinct roots which just happened to have been become indistinguishable.


----------



## Dhira Simha

berndf said:


> Coming back to the original question, ...


The additional evidence is essential if we want to resolve this. On one hand, we have a group of  supposed cognates which are conveniently listed here *bhergh and which appear to cover most of the IE groups  except Balto-Slavonic. The  Slavonic *bergъ "bank, shore" is controversial  and there may be at least one intelligible way of  explaining it as deriving from a different root than *bhergh 'mountain?'. On the other hand, we have a very similar beregti 'to preserve, to take care of', which may also be reconstructed in a similar form *bhergh(?) with the general meaning "to preserve, protect, nourish, care for". Semantically, these meanings are hardly compatible with "hight, top, mountain".  Also this root is confined to only some Slavonic and some German dialects (Goth baírgan, Germ. bergen). The  Eastern Lithuanian bir̃ginti "to save, protect" may be a Slavonic loan. Such limitation is  suspicious and needs explanation.

  If we look into the Old Indo-Iranian, particularly Vedic we find there an exact semantic and a near exact phonetic match: bhṛ - bhárati which has two principal meanings "to bear, carry, convey, hold"  and "to support, maintain, cherish, foster". The latter  is fully compatible in meaning with Slavonic bereg- and German bergen. The difference is only in one final g(h). Compare Goth. baírgan 'to conseal, hide' and baíra 'I carry'.  Clearly we deal with two closely related roots and  all we need to do is to explain the final g/h  in Slavonic-Germanic.  An interesting clue may be the Rus.  infinitive bereč  'to preserve, take care of' where č = palatalised  ending t(i) and the -g is missing (cp. beregu 'I preserve, take care') vs. a parallel form beregti.

 We  have, therefore, to posit two separate closely sounding  roots. In fact, in Pokorny they were shown as distinct roots *bhereg'h   'high; mountain'  and *bherg'h   'hide, keep' but  other dictionaries  give them as one form *bhergh (American Heritage Dict. of IE Roots p.11). I  do not know where the *bherg and *bhergo which are in the title of the thread come from.  Next comes the interesting  discussion on the extremely important Vedic root bṛh (which is the cornerstone of the Brahman concept) and whether or not we can include it here etc. but this is off-topic.

Conclusion: *bhereg'h   'high; mountain'  and *bherg'h   'hide, keep'  are two independent roots. The only  possible link to connect them could be the Slavonic bereg, breg 'bank, shore'  but its etymology is ambiguous and  controversial.


----------



## berndf

Dhira Simha said:


> Conclusion: *bhereg'h   'high; mountain'  and *bherg'h   'hide, keep'  are two independent roots.


I am not yet convinced. There is some semantic overlay which needs to be explained, like Germ. _Burg_/Engl. _borough_ which is supposed to be derived from the meaning _mountain_/hill but which could equally be derived from the meaning _to protect_.


----------



## Dhira Simha

berndf said:


> I am not yet convinced. There is some semantic overlay which needs to be explained, like Germ. _Burg_/Engl. _borough_ which is supposed to be derived from the meaning _mountain_/hill but which could equally be derived from the meaning _to protect_.



O.E. burg, burh "a dwelling or dwellings within a fortified enclosure," from P.Gmc. *burgs "hill fort, fortress" (cf. O.Fris. burg "castle," O.N. borg "wall, castle," O.H.G. burg, buruc "fortified place, citadel," Ger. Burg "castle," Goth. baurgs "city" - primarily  means "enclosed place" not "hill". Not to mention that there is a  big semantic difference between Hügel  and Berg.  Any connection with Berg "mountain" is probably a later development as  such enclosed forts were usually  made on elevated places. I am not a specialist on Germanic etymology but  I immediately see a direct link with Lat. muro  and  Skr. mura 'encompassing , surrounding'. Please explain why in all these cases there happened a change of  /e/ to /u/  especially if the word Berg was preserved perfectly? Voicing or devoicing of initial labial is a trivial thing. Often it is purely psychological and a matter of spelling. Another possible  connection would be  Skr. pur  'a rampart, wall, stronghold, fortress, castle, city, town'  preserved perfectly in Slavonic  -por:  zapor, upor  etc. (and probably Eng propp and Germ. pfropfen). I would not even exclude that Skr. mur  and pur  could be phonetic variants.


----------



## eamp

LIV (Lexikon der Indogermanischen Verben) distinguishes two verbal roots here *bherĝh meaning "become high, rise" which is preserved in verbs with this meaning in Hittite, Tocharian and Armenian apparently. Many languages have derivations from this root meaning "high" or "hill".
And on the other hand *bhergh, with non-palatal gh, with meaning "preserve, care for", but it's listed with a question mark. Besides the obvious Germanic and Slavic words (and not so obvious like English "bury" and "borrow") it also connects an iranic word meaning "to honor".

If this construction is correct Slavic "bergъ" can't be from the root meaning "high" though, we would expect "berzъ" unless it is a loan from a western (non-satem) dialect.

For Germanic *burg- I think derivation from *bhrĝh is most likely since the formation (zero grade root noun) seems to have an exact parallel in Celtic *brigs "hill", maybe also in Iranian, but I don't have a dictionary for that. It would then later have been influenced in meaning by the root meaning "protect" as well as the Latin "burgus".


----------



## eamp

The chance of /e/ to /u/ is because of a well known phenomenon in Indo-European languages called ablaut. In this case it represents an earlier difference of *bherĝh and *bhrĝh.
Latin "murus" (which is what you mean I guess) is attested in earlier forms "moerus" so it's from *moiros, which the Skt. word definitely can't be derived from. Your other words also have nothing to do with each other.
Such willy-nilly word comparisons as you offer have not been accepted in Comparative Linguistics for at least 150 years, sound changes in general follow regular patterns and are not just speakers substituting one sound for another randomly.


----------



## Dhira Simha

I remember from my school days that  Lat. _burgus_ is actually  a late Latin  borrowing from  Germanic. Please correct me if I am wrong. How could it influence _Berg_ to turn it into _Burg_? Again, the principal meaning of _burg_ is an enclosed fortress and not "hill". Sorry,  I can understand  _bury_ and _borrow_ but what does 'honour' have to do here? Is it not suspicious that so many various words seem to derive from the same  mythical *bhergh?


----------



## berndf

Dhira Simha said:


> O.E. burg, burh "a dwelling or dwellings within a fortified enclosure," from P.Gmc. *burgs "hill fort, fortress" (cf. O.Fris. burg "castle," O.N. borg "wall, castle," O.H.G. burg, buruc "fortified place, citadel," Ger. Burg "castle," Goth. baurgs "city" - primarily  means "enclosed place" not "hill". Not to mention that there is a  big semantic difference between Hügel  and Berg.  Any connection with Berg "mountain" is probably a later development as  such enclosed forts were usually  made on elevated places. I am not a specialist on Germanic etymology but  I immediately see a direct link with Lat. muro  and  Skr. mura 'encompassing , surrounding'. Please explain why in all these cases there happened a change of  /e/ to /u/  especially if the word Berg was preserved perfectly? Voicing or devoicing of initial labial is a trivial thing. Often it is purely psychological and a matter of spelling. Another possible  connection would be  Skr. pur  'a rampart, wall, stronghold, fortress, castle, city, town'  preserved perfectly in Slavonic  -por:  zapor, upor  etc. (and probably Eng propp and Germ. pfropfen). I would not even exclude that Skr. mur  and pur  could be phonetic variants.


Don't get me wrong. I don't say, you are wrong. I only think that we don't know yet. Grimm and Adlung (as mentioned above), e.g. both assume the two roots to be related but disagree about which one is primary. As to _Burg_, the common meaning it _fortified castle/settlement on a hill_. Here it is given as derived from _high_.


----------



## Dhira Simha

It is just another unprovable theory. If _burg_  is a derivative of the  same mythical *bhergh    please explain why this root manifests itself as _burg_ and _berg_ in the same language group?


----------



## berndf

Dhira Simha said:


> It is just another unprovable theory.


Just like yours, and this was my point.





Dhira Simha said:


> If _burg_ is a derivative of the same mythical *bhergh please explain why this root manifests itself as _burg_ and _berg_ in the same language group?


Well, here you have the testimony of a native speaker because in modern German Burg still has this meaning (_castle on a hill_). And multiple forms derived from the same root aren't so rare. E.g. because they ware derived from different dialects, e.g. English _chase _(from French) and _catch _(from Norman French).


----------



## perevoditel

I would only say that it doesn't fit to Slavic languages, because "mountain" is "gora/góra" in most of them. "Versina" means "top", there are also derived terms in Polish to that.

And what about "bjerk"/"björk" meaning :"birch" (kind of tree)? Is it also derived from PIE?


----------



## Dhira Simha

You mean Burgberg? And Bürger is a  a citizen of a "castle on a hill"  or just somebody living within city walls?


----------



## berndf

Dhira Simha said:


> You mean Burgberg? And Bürger is a  a citizen of a "castle on a hill"  or just somebody living within city walls?


A _Burgberg_ is the hill on which a _Burg _has been built. The meaning _Burg=city_ does not exist in German and isn't attested in any development stage. Originally, a _Bürger_ accordingly was someone who lived in a castle. The extension to inhabitants of a city is conventionally explained by the fact that German cities were usually built around castles. You find this explanation e.g. in Grimm. Later, the term was, probably under French influence extended further to mean _citizen of a country_.


----------



## Dhira Simha

berndf said:


> A _Burgberg_ is the hill on which a _Burg _has been built...


Having pondered on the issue I should admit that  there  indeed could be a deep connection between  the two meanings "mountain, hight place"  and "to preserve, protect".  Currently, there is no agreement on *bhergh and, as I can see from Trubachev's dictionary of Slavonic Inherited Lexicon,  he wisely distanced  from expressing his own opinion.  The general consensus is that  both  German Berg and bergen  and Slavonic  b(e)reg,  beregti are  ancient inherited words.   I can also see your point on Burg.  Still the Skr. bṛh in which the cardinal meaning is "to expand, grow"  and "high"  being only a marginal meaning needs further study.   Due to the potential instability of the initial labial (cp vṛh/bṛh) I would suggest to view  Skr. vṛjana  "an enclosure , cleared or fenced or  fortified place (esp. `" sacrificial enclosure "' ; but also `" pasture  or camping ground , settlement "  inherently connected with the verb vṛ 'to cover , screen , veil , conceal , hide , surround; to ward off , check , keep back , prevent , hinder , restrain'  which is, by the way,  believed to be related to varṣiman discussed earlier.  At least this  opens some alternative path which  has not been explored yet, to the best of my knowledge. One more clue could be the  existance of parallel forms bereginja and vereginja 'benevolent female spirit-protector' in Russian  (see ESSja 1-193).


----------



## berndf

It seems we are on the same wavelength now.


----------



## Dhira Simha

I think that   the "classic" idea of "reconstructing" PIE roots  as  CVC  radicals, modelled from Semitic may actually be short-sighted.  IE languages, particularly Skr. are known for  extensive use of  compounding. Can we imagine it stretching deeper into the root structure?  I do not mean  pre-fixation, this is what  is usually meant by compound verbs.   Looking at Sanskrit  we can see numerous combinations of simple V  of CV roots with  such radicals as da "giving", dhe "having, placing, ga "movement", ka "comparison"  etc.  For example we have an element va which has a variety of meanings ( which partly can be explained because it may be a fusion of va, vo and ve)  meaning, particularly 'air , wind ; addressing ; reverence'.  Then we have a number of  more complex formations:vac(k) - to speak; vad - to speak (va + da?); vaT  'to speak' ; vich 'to speak' Similarly, with vRj  we can see a fusion of vR and j. Perhaps by endlessly creating various similar  CVC roots we  are chasing fathoms? It is off-topic, I am just reflecting.


----------



## eamp

berndf said:


> A _Burgberg_ is the hill on which a _Burg _has been built. The meaning _Burg=city_ does not exist in German and isn't attested in any development stage. Originally, a _Bürger_ accordingly was someone who lived in a castle. The extension to inhabitants of a city is conventionally explained by the fact that German cities were usually built around castles. You find this explanation e.g. in Grimm. Later, the term was, probably under French influence extended further to mean _citizen of a country_.



That Burg never meant city isn't true though, in Old High German in fact this was the normal meaning. In glosses it appear for "civitas" and "urbs" also for Greek "polis" and in the Bible translations the cities are all called "burg", Rome is called a "burg" too. Of course all those will have been fortified cities with a wall made of stone and most were originally built on hills too. It could also translate "castellum" and "castrum" apparently, but those occur more rarely.
"burgari" and "burgliut" with the meaning inhabitants of a city also dates from Old High German and this actually predates the development of castles and then cities around castles in Germany. So I would say the meaning "city" (maybe more originally ~fortified settlement?) is definitely old in German it just became restricted to the modern meaning of castle sometimes in the middle ages when it was replaced by "Stadt" in the meaning of city (ohg. "stat" still meant just generic "place").
Interestingly, when I researched I found that in Old Icelandic "borg" still has three meanings: "castle, fortification" and "city" but also "hill".


----------



## berndf

eamp said:


> maybe more originally ~fortified settlement?


Yes, I think so.


eamp said:


> That Burg never meant city isn't true though, in Old High German in fact this was the normal meaning. In glosses it appear for "civitas" and "urbs" also for Greek "polis" and in the Bible translations the cities are all called "burg", Rome is called a "burg" too.


You are right. My mistake. It was replaced in that meaning by _Stadt_ only in MHG.


----------



## Dhira Simha

I am afraid, we are stuck at this point and will only go in circles. I have nothing to add. This discussion was a good experience for me, though. I learned a lot. Thanks to everybody!


----------



## berndf

Dhira Simha said:


> I am afraid, we are stuck at this point and will only go in circles.


I am afraid so.


Dhira Simha said:


> I learned a lot.


So have I. Thanks a lot.


----------



## aeneas dardanus

berndf said:


> There are two semantic ranges for this group: _Hill/mountain/top/high_ on the one hand and _protect/cover/bring ashore/shore_ on the other hand. The question that was asked was if these ranges originate from a single meaning and a single etymon or if those are distinct roots which just happened to have been become indistinguishable.


You are right;
The previous is the original _sema_ of the root in discussion;
whereas the later is the derived meaning of the first, -therefore a late (derivative) loan on eastern Slavic.


----------



## berndf

aeneas dardanus said:


> The previous is the original _sema_ of the root in discussion;
> whereas the later is the derived meaning of the first, -therefore a late (derivative) loan on eastern Slavic.


This has been the point of controversy in this thread. Just claiming one side is right and the others are wrong won't do the trick. Please substantiate your claim.


----------



## Dhira Simha

berndf said:


> This has been the point of controversy in this thread. Just claiming one side is right and the others are wrong won't do the trick. Please substantiate your claim.



I fully support berndf. I can clearly see his point  and  keep on thinking on this.  There are  too many  verbs with similar phonetic structure in  Eastern Slavonic:
_стеречь - стерегу_; _бечь - бегу_; _жечь - жгу_ etc. so  _беречь - берегу  _does not stand out in any way to be considered a loan. At this stage I am still inclined to  separate the two meanings and posit separate roots but  this is my personal opinion as of August the 7th, 2012 at 23.55 UK  time


----------



## aeneas dardanus

berndf said:


> This has been the point of *controversy* in this thread. Just claiming one side is right and the others are wrong won't do the trick. Please substantiate your claim.


(controversy; I know there is none, at least, not among scholars). 

I think that the meaning of the root {ᵖb:rgᵏ < > ᵖbr:gᵏ } is very well augmented and explained in signifying a (round hill); hillock; *mound*(1); bank…;   -either in a flat field, or beside water where troubled communities found it a better place to make a stand, and in time: *fortify*(2), and later on permanently settle there for: *safety*(3) reasons.

I presume that there is no point in providing that: 3. conceptual notions, and 2. synonyms, trigger their names from actual 1. objects, - not the other way around.


----------



## berndf

aeneas dardanus said:


> (controversy; I know there is none, at least, not among scholars).


Grimm and Adelung (see #7 above) agreed that they are related but had opposing views which meaning is derived from which. A good century later, Pokorny lists them as two different root (here, #239 and #245). If you think that new evidence has decided the matter since their days, please share your information with us.


----------



## Treaty

I'm not sure about the Russian _bereg _and its possible Slavic cognates or how words change in Russian. Nevertheless, the first thing that it reminded me as "bank" or "shore" was Persian _bar _(= side; _for water_: bank, shore) and its Greco-Latin cognate _para_. Anyway, it doesn't explain the end "g".


----------



## Ljudevit

In Croatian "brijeg" means hill, {"breg" in kajkavian Croatian). There is also "brdo", ("berdo"-kajkavian) meaning hill, but that might be a stretch. I believe that Bulgarian has "bair", "_баир"_.


----------

