[glow=red,2,300]TEXT[/glow][tt][/tt] ???
I have one question.
I found the meaning of the root ‘*sol-’ in many books is "one, unique" and the meaning of the root ‘*hol-" also is "one, whole". Is there any relationship between the root of ‘*hol-’ and ‘*sol-’ ?
and some times . I suppose that maybe ‘*hol-’ and ‘*sol-’ have the same etymology. because in some language , The /s/ sound is represented by character ‘s’, while some other is represented by character ‘h’. for example. "hello". some call it as /helou/ while others call it /selou/.
all mentioned above are just my guess. so i just posethis topic and wait for your correct answer!
<<<I found the meaning of the root ‘*sol-’ in many books is "one, unique" and the meaning of the root ‘*hol-" also is "one, whole". Is there any relationship between the root of ‘*hol-’ and ‘*sol-’ ?<<<
Both the Greek form with holo- and the Latin form with sol- are believed to go back to the same PIE root *sol-.
The s-h alterantion can also be found in Greek /heks/ and Latin sex (six).
safe (adj.)
c.1280, "uninjured, unharmed," from O.Fr. sauf, from L. salvus "uninjured, healthy, safe," related to salus "good health," saluber "healthful," all from PIE *solwos from base *sol- "whole" (cf. L. solidus "solid," Skt. sarvah "uninjured, intact, whole," Avestan haurva- "uninjured, intact," O.Pers. haruva-, Gk. holos "whole"). Meaning "not exposed to danger" is attested from 1387; of actions, etc., "free from risk," first recorded 1590. Safe-conduct (1297) is from O.Fr. sauf-conduit (13c.).
"single," c.1386, from O.Fr. soul (fem. soule), from L. solus "alone," of unknown origin, perhaps related to se "oneself," from PIE reflexive base *swo- (see so). Adv. solely is attested from 1495.
I’d like to know who claimed the *hol- root and from what protolanguage. The way I learned it, there is no PIE *h-. A Greek h-, or rather `-, has PIE *s- as its origin.
One view (Univ.Engl.Dict.): Engl. holo-, Gk holo- ... *solw-os, cogn. w. Scrt sarva- and O.Pers. haurva- ... cp. Lat. solus.
For ‘one’ etc., there’s also PIE *sem-. Lat. semel ‘once (only)’ should be here. Under this root, the Am.Heritage Etym.Dict. groups single, simple (Gk. haplous) and more. AHED has none of those sub *swo-, just such and so.
PIE *sol- = Old Greek (and/or Proto-Iranian?) *hol-?!
Anders:
<<<I’d like to know who claimed the *hol- root and from what protolanguage.<<<
The original mail is indeed a bit unclear and i must say that i kind of ignored Tauzi’s:
<<<Is there any relationship between the root of ‘*hol-’ and ‘*sol-’ ? and some times . I suppose that maybe ‘*hol-’ and ‘*sol-’ have the same etymology. etc. etc.<<<
My sources indicate that there is no connection between Greek (holos) ‘whole’ and Latin solus ‘only’.
Rather , holos is a cognate with English ‘all’ and ‘whole’ and also with Irish oll ("great; huge; vast; immense) This root also appears in another Irish word ollscoil (pronounced ull-skell) which means "university" as well as another English word ‘almighty’ as in "Almighty God."
Below is an etymology mentioned for "solus" mentioned by "Your Dictionary.com" which derives it from a Proto-Indo-European s(w)e-.
Sometimes, however, -s- and -h- are interchangeable in Indo-European languages as in the case of Latin septem "seven" vs Greek hepta and Persian haft "seven" or Latin semita and Spanish senda "path" vs Welsh and Breton hent "road". :)
Hi, all
what the exactly meaning of the sentence—"Is there any relationship between the root of ‘*hol-’ and ‘*sol-’ ? and some times . I suppose that maybe ‘*hol-’ and ‘*sol-’ have the same etymology. etc. etc", is that I just want to inquire that weather the ‘*hol- and ‘*sol- are cognate or not?. because when i look for some dictionaries, i just found that ‘s’ and ‘h’ are as interchangeable mostly as the character ‘i’ and ‘j’ , ‘u’ ‘v’ and ‘w’.
so, i ask all to testify that that weather the ‘*hol- and ‘*sol- are cognate or not.
Hi,
I just want to inquire that weather the ‘*hol- and ‘*sol- are cognate or not?. because when i look for some dictionaries, i just found that ‘s’ and ‘h’ are as interchangeable mostly as the character ‘i’ and ‘j’ , ‘u’ ‘v’ and ‘w’.
so, i ask all to testify that that weather the ‘*hol- and ‘*sol- are cognate or not.
Once again, your mail actually is too unclear. What exactly do you mean?
<<<I just want to inquire that weather the ‘*hol- and ‘*sol- are cognate or not?<<<
An astersik * can indicate two (and a half) things:
1. an unattested, reconstructed form, otherwise said, a word/root that has not been found back and that has been reconstructed by historical linguists.
1,5. idem dito, but i have the impression your talking about a PIE form, and as already pointed out by Anders, PIE doesn’t have a word initial *h-
Now, since PIE doesn’t have *h-, about which (proto-)language are you talking?
2. an asterisk can also indicate a mistake, an error. In other words, if you mean PIE *hol-, then it should be **hol, because PIE never had *hol-, as already pointed out by Anders.
<<<because when i look for some dictionaries, i just found that ‘s’ and ‘h’ are as interchangeable mostly as the character ‘i’ and ‘j’ , ‘u’ ‘v’ and ‘w’.<<<
Which dictionaries? If i look through my French - Dutch - Portuguese - whatever dictionaries, i notice that h and s are not interchangeable. So, which dictionaries exactly do you mean? What’s the context of your question? And what do you mean by ‘character’? Are you talking about leters (graphemes) or sounds?
I think everybody who already posted and others are really very willing to help you out, but it is fairly difficult if you don’t express yourself in a slightly more clear way.
[quote author=brian_costello link=board=etymology;num=1120400741;start=0#6 date=07/04/05 at 02:42:28]My sources indicate that there is no connection between Greek (holos) ‘whole’ and Latin solus ‘only’.
What sources would these be?
Rather , holos is a cognate with English ‘all’ and ‘whole’ and also with Irish oll ("great; huge; vast; immense)
Usually, Greek pan- is translated as English all-, whereas hol-/holo- is translated as English whole.
I have found, tauzi, that you are correct, *solo- and *holo- are actually the same word with a consonent-shift. Our proof is in words of Greek origin, such as holobastic and Catholic. The word was adopted by the Germans in the suffixed form of -solido- before it became the English words, soldier, solid, consolidate, et cetera. The two words are not cognative, however, for the different languages that contain these words are not that close, but it is undeniable that *solo- is a derivative of *holo-.
The h and s, as I have found, are not really interchangeable, but keep in mind, most word transitions between languages are caused simply by consonant-shifts. Such is apparent in the word six, which was once the Greek word hex, septum, which was once the Greek word hepta, and even solar, which had once been the Greek word helios.
The letters i and j are only interchangeble because the letter j has different pronunciations. German words spelled with a j are cognates of English words spelled with a y, and the German j is always pronounced as a y. Take into account also that there are more than one tetragrammaton but all similar such as JHVH and YHVH, based on the name of God, Iahova, linked to words such as Jupiter, Iupiter, and Io.* The letters u, v, and w are interchangeable because they were all the same letter: v, such as in Venvs, what we know as Venus, and as in the German w, with the same name and pronunciation as the English v.
*There is more. The Latin name Jupiter is directly taken from the Greek name Zeus.
[quote author=Gattenon_Dorradein link=board=etymology;num=1120400741;start=0#14 date=02/05/06 at 23:37:18]I have found, tauzi, that you are correct, *solo- and *holo- are actually the same word with a consonent-shift. Our proof is in words of Greek origin, such as holobastic and Catholic. The word was adopted by the Germans in the suffixed form of -solido- before it became the English words, soldier, solid, consolidate, et cetera.
We already dealt with this *sol-/*hol- a few months ago, so i’m only going to refer to previous posts.
I have found, tauzi, that you are correct, *solo- and *holo- are actually the same word with a consonent-shift. The two words are not cognative, however, for the different languages that contain these words are not that close
I’m sorry, but this sounds utterly confused. If *holo- and *solo "would actually be the same word" (or rather, derived from the same word), then they are cognates, by definition.
, but it is undeniable that *solo- is a derivative of *holo-.
It’s already been denied by several people in a very convincing way. Gr. holo- (or PIE *holo-) > Latin solo- doesn’t make sense.
The h and s, as I have found, are not really interchangeable, but keep in mind, most word transitions between languages are caused simply by consonant-shifts.
This you need to explain, because it sounds utterly confused once again. As far as i understood this now, i think i can give you an endless list of counterexamples.
Such is apparent in the word six, which was once the Greek word hex, septum, which was once the Greek word hepta, and even solar, which had once been the Greek word helios.
I’m sorry, but this is quite nonsensical as English / Latin six/sex is NOT derived from Greek hex. Neither has ‘solar’ "once been the Greek word helios".
Six / sex and hex all go back to a PIE form *s(w)eks.
Seven is believed to derive from PIE *septm. Again, with initial -s.
The letters i and j are only interchangeble because the letter j has different pronunciations.
In historical linguistics, linguists don’t deal with ‘letters’, but with sounds.
