A-PDF Merger DEMO : Purchase from www.A-PDF.

com to remove the watermark

Berlant, Stephen R. (2008). Deconstructing Grimm’s laws reveals the unrecognized

foot and leg symbolism in Indo-European lexicons. Semiotica, 171(August), pp. 265-
290.

Excerpts:
 Unrccosni.edlbot and leg stnbolisn 269
26a S. R. Reflanl

RasmusRasksbow€dindep€ndently in the earlynineteenlh cenlurythat In his later life. Gnmm wamed'in thc evolutionof aI civiliT€dlan-
and Latin words coresponded to the leltersof suases.foduilotr: inre'ference from oulsideand unwarranledarbilrari
the lertersof manyGr€ek
identical or v€ry closelvrelatedGemanic words' ic's'lavc olaved such a laree parl rhal lhe utmosl sucha slud) can
manysemanrically
with theseshowings.the folkloristJacobGrimm hv- achiev€ h 6 show up rh€ danser-rocks whichhaveto be avoided' (Bod-
ln accordance
porhesiz€d in hisrelrr.re Gannatik (1819 l8l7) ttLa!two maJorsenes m€r 1944:460) Nevenh€less, a lale l9th{cntury, Cermanphilologist
of soundshiftshad causedsomePIE wordsto comeinto. lor instance. namedKarl Brugmannand,later,a larsegroupof bisroricallinguists
Latin and Gr€ekone way, bui into the Gemraniclanguages {suchas whoseohilosoohic-al descendants calledih€msslvesNeogrammanans,but
No|s€. Old English, Old High Gernan, Dutch' Frisian'and I will c;ll Brugnanians in delerence lo Grinm's waming-claimed that
colhic, old
Saxon) anoihe. way. Grimrn, moreover, invoked these sound shifts tl]e foreeoing and oth€r sound shifts werc sci€ntificallvprovefl laws that
Old
could be used to determine which IE wordswerecognateand the slruc-
lo argue that specificGreek and Latin words were cognatewith speciftc
cermanic words. insofar as th€ words had beenderived from the sam€ rureofthe originalPIE roots.
PIE root. D€spiieth€; now vinually, unanimouslvaccepl€dBrugmanianbeliefs,
Jacqu;sRosenman (1969,1972,l99l). a phvsician wiih exlensiv€ trairung-
Among the mosl notable shifis Gritnrn hvpoth€si7€d.severalof which ol
in th€ empiricalsciences,concludedan intenseforty-y€ar examrnairon
Rask and Schlegclhad notcd earlier,was on€that had apparendvcaus€d of evidence
historicallinguislica usi[g lbe sanc reasoning and standar&
a *, in many PIE words to com€ into, for instanc€,Greek and Latin as
*r. bul inro the cermanio langrrasesas 'l Tlus, linguist! haY€repeatedly enpiricatsci;nfistsuseto ftsolveissuesHis conclusion: everyallegedlin-
and app]jed injudiciouslv to orga-
p;inkd out sinceGrinrn that (l) the rP in theGreekandLatin wordsfor guiitic law was fallaciously fo[nulaled
;iz€ the linguistic record into a flimsv patchwork ln addition' Rosenman
rhe lool za6 and ppr, resp€ctively,and their combining foirns lod- and
ped- respectively,corrcspondedneatly ro th€ Y in Germanic words for concludedihat the Brugmanianshad b€€npassingthis patchwork do*n
the foot (for instance,O1dEnglishrtr, Old Frisjan/tr. O1d Saxon/rtr. ftom teacherto studentfor so long they had comelo believei1 wasa fac-
Old Nors€/6rr. Sinilarly, linguists have repeatedlvpointcd out since rualreconslruction ofrhesay rhePIElericonhade!ohed asopposed
crimm thal the *p in the Gre€kand Ladn wordsfor'f^ttjtr,t' patcr corre' to $e mazcof poorly assembl€dinfercnces.assumptions'b€liefs'and hy-
sponded neatlyto the yin Germanicwordsfor 'fathei'(fo. inltance,Old Dolhes.s Rosenman concluded il was
English/:e&r, Old Frisianfade\ Gorhicfddot) Fot insBnce.afterscienlificallv reanrlvzingIhe samedala Crirnmand
his follow€rshad analyzedin franing theirlaws,Ros€nman (1991iI 2)
Anolher soundshift lhat Grimm hypolhesizedwasone that had appaF 1l andLat-
arpued.first.in opposilionIo Crirnms hypolbesis lhal Cretk
ently causedthc initial *& soundin cdl to comeinto, for examPle,Greek should ha\e
lhar Grimm
and Latin as 'k (lvhich Roman writers used*c to represent),but into thc ;n''. lnuu;361yconespond.lo German;c',
*,t +c *k *c' and
ro Germanic and
c€manic languagesas *r, having the throatv sound of s.ottish /,c'ft' :Iso compar€dGreek and Lalin
and Gnmm succecdedin finding many exampleswhere this correspon- Greco-Latin *, to Germanic *, as sci€ntificcontrols. Indeed' after per-
d€nc€n'as apparEntlyvalid. For example,he nored thai the in Latin
*c fonning th€s€experiments.Rosenmanfound, as I did indeFndendv and
*i(
.o/r, 'hom' and the in Cte€kkdlror 'horn' corr€sponded neallvIo \earsafterward.tharin manycas€iinitralCennanic'l or coresponds
the +/t in Old High German fldlr. Dutch hoon, and Corh;c haum rerywell.ifnot berrer. ro inirralCre€kr* ot Latinr' whrle " inrlidlGer-
*' Thus'as
'hom.' Similarly, h€ noted that the +, in Germanic $'ords foi the hcatt .anic 'tr conesponas vetv well,it nol b€xer'1oinitial Latin
Ros€nrnanput ii, the rules introducedbv Grinm and followed carefully
(such as Old Enellsh heona, Old $xon ,?rrd, Old Norse iJZl&' and
w€re proven to bc talseat thevery
Dutchrall) corresponded n€allyto the *. in Laiin .o/ and cofdis'hear!" by linsuistsfor languag€ relaliorships
as w€ll as to the 'k in Greek kada 'heart'
furtherthat a +din manyGreekandLatin words For initu"ce,my earlyinvestjgalions reveal€d ihat if Grimmhadcom-
Grimm hypolhesized
corespondedto a 'l in phon€tically and semanticallv relatedGennanic pared Old Saxonlierra, Old Norst llrtla. Dutch la'! and. particularlv'
i)d Englishnetlra ro theslem,r/r' of the Latin verb fo' hearlen'
words. and he succeeded in finding manv cxampleswhcretbat correspon-
ins- consrderinqfhar Ln}l;sh.n, oura|en" . a 'Iorlart
bt hcartenl1s'
dencewas apparentiylalid. For instance,he notedthat ihe '/ in the and otd
rrom rairn .or 'hea (\ia Middle Enslish en'outoP?n
"nonym
above-ncnlionedGermanicwords for the 'hean' and 'foot' conesponded "."-" *&o/r- was
trench encoragier),C'iinln could havelogicallv deduced thdt
neatlyro the *d in thesemantically idenlial Inrin andGreekwords.

i
 210 S. R Betldnl Unrccosfied loot nd les synbolisn 211

an '/r,, varianr of the srerIt.otd- of La]Jt c.)rdis,hean. cognarewith th€ iust as cdnrafeis the frequentativ€form of the Latin verb ran./e 'to sins '
scmanlrc{lly andconsonanrally idenlicalcermanicwords.And theBrue_ Sincero sucht-atin verbexists,however,the Brugmanians who fram€d
manians couldand shoutdha\e rhenanribured .ro - lo rhe.amepaE the American Herilage Dictionary's etymology of l,o/rad authoritatively
rcot (*kerd) to which they att.ibuted cr€ek *ardia. Lalin .ofdir and rhe +8rl'
declar€d,otualt the Latitr derivativeof a 'sufiixedze.o-gradefon
foregoinscermanic wordsfor the heart. lrr of a PIE root *elrcr- for liking and wanting, unrelatedto the PIE
Doing so, how€ver,would have disprovedGrinm\ hyporhesis and +gherdthey hypothesizedas the sourceof Sanskritiltddla
now supposedlaw thar inirjal cermanic *,1 invariably correspondedio Although readenwho havenot srudi€dhisroricallinguisijcsin an) de
initial Lalin *1, aswejl as his hypotlesisandnow supposcd law tbat the tail or recently may find the foregoing and the following etvmologies
1 in Latin rrolr- should corrcspond10 a */ in the foresojng cermanic complexand contusio8,I will showbelowthat this complexityand confu-
words, if the words were rruly cognate.Consequ€ntiy,ncither Crjmm sion resullsfrom the Brugmanianatlempt to forca the linguistic record10
nor his tollowe.s associatedrhesecreek, Latin and cermanic words. conform to their alleg€dlarvs,rather than from my inability to cl€arly
Consideringrhat the root * hr.1-of Sansj(JithrdaJa.heart,bearsrhe ini- preseDtthe resultingetymologies.In addilion. I will showb€lowhow this
tial +i of the foregoinscermanic words for the h€an and Latin hoftali. confusionand complexitycan be rectifed in a logical, parsimoniousand
wella! rhe"/in Larin co i! zndcrcek kotdtd.hean,Cnmm and his
^
followers could have rhcn atso losicaly considered,tutara a hybidjzd Thai ihe Brugnaniansfraned their all€gedlaws by acceptingonlv the
variant of thes€words Logically and parsiinoniousiyassociating/rrdaya inferencesand evidencethal supponcdsuchlaws,and iSnoringanv infer-
wirh ils arguabl).it nor ccnajnty.readityevi,lenrGermaDic. I drin and €ncesand evidene thal would havepicventedthem from doing so sciet'
cneer cognares would.however.ha\e mnlmdickd Crimm.shyDolheses tifically. bccomesevenmore apparentby obs€rvingthat in many other
and no$ dlte8eJtawsspecifyints rhar rhe inilial */, in hdayo iiutt noL cas€sthc evidenc€is exactly opposileto whal an alleg€dlaw prediclsit
lawfully correspondto (l) the inilial *, in cermanic wordsfor the heart- should b€. For instance.the Lalin word /tae./6 for a young goal is s€-
(2) thc initjal *& in crcek kadrz, or (3) rhejnirial +. in Larin cor andcor- manlically identical to the Old Norse anc€slorktl& of Enelish *id- The
dis.ltj€ jn.inal*h ir htdara could, however,correspondro rhe initjal *, in initial ', in la€d6 should. how€ver,lawfully exist in the G€rmaniclan-
Larin hoftai, b|t hftlltfa's +d could nor iawfully corespond to the *, in guages.just as the */, in loltalt should,while the initial 'k in &i/, should
,rrld/t. Consequ€nrty.the Brusmanianscould not considerizl^u coe_ lawfully exist in Latin. In addition, th€ *d in /,e4l6 could not lawfullv
natewirh rheanyof Lhedforemenlioned $ordsfor rheheanwirhourieoi corrcspondto the '/ in *r.tr\,just as the l* in Latin ,o/tdri could not law-
ardilingdreir\uppo\sdta fully correspondto th€ *r in the aforcmentionedGermanicwords for the
The Brugnanians drguabtyor cerrUn,y.dependrng on rhelogicand hean.Conscquently, neilherCrimm nor theBrugmanians ass'xiated rae-
evrdence oncbrjngsro bearon lle is(ue llereforeatlemDred to exotain drr with frli1r. Instead, the Brugrnarians associaled leadlr with Cerman
htdara awayby clatf:,ingir mu\r be a dcri\ariveofanorherptE roor for gdirz 'soaf bas€don th€ evidencethal many IE wordsfor kids had be€n
rheheafl.-'gherd-seemingly rn agrermenr sirh an a egedta\r specifyins derivedfrom IE wordsfor goats(Buck| 949:3 36-3.18),asw€llasa suP
InatrnruJIsan\knt./i invuriably cjme froman iniridlplE .s andcone- posedla.Jvspecifyingthat initial Latin +l' invariably conespondedto ini-
spondedro Cer anic*s. In orle' words.ro ,uppoflrhensu;po"edtaws. dal Cermanic *s, discuss€dmore below.
the Erugmanianr decidedlo byporhe\ize rhal lhe ptF lexiconhad rwo. By refusinglo associaterdedrr with ktz,rl,however.Grjmm and his fol-
enlir€lyunrelatedrools for lhe hean - a relrlivetynarrowreferenl lowersclearlyor arguably againdcp€nding on the logicand evidence
shichpresumably Jitrered onlyin thar$e .a in .8herd-$asvoiced and oneinvokes orphanedra?dlj from its s€maniicailv identicalandpho-
nearrlyasp,raled. shcFa. lhc .l in .kerd-wa. !oicete(s andretativetv oelically, readily associable G€nnanic cognaes tdi and ktd' .iusi as
un!-n,raled. Cnmm and his followers had arguably or certainly orphaned Latin ,o/-
Thc Brugmanians slill, however,coutd nol auribute Latin *h(, - ro tart from iis Latin. Sanskrit,and Germaniccognatcs. For if 8dt: cotlld
PIE '8herd-,because the ., in irl/- couldnor havecornefrom the *,1in be cosnatewith ,iaed!r, thereis no logically or evidentiallvjustifiabler€a-
'ghcrd- urdq Brusmanian taw A Brugmanian who reviewed my analy_ sonwhy s:dr: couldnot alsobe cosnatewilh,ttlr and Itd bas€don th€
$isoi rn,./ri lhcrcforcnucmpredto exptain,o/rari awayby mainratning phonedcrelationshipsbetween*s, */l and *,t Grimm and his followers
rl nusr lr tl. licqrrrnrflrilcti)rn ofn Lalin vcrbfor hea cnjng(*r,r"/i), invokedto associate olh€r Latin and Germani€{ords Accordiry to
 272 S. R Betlanl
Grimm's supposcd la*s, however, ki!1h and kid haye no Latin or. tbr tlral
matt€r, any IE cognatesdcspire rheir beinS semanricallyid€nricat .nd
phoncticalfy readily associ^ble wirh gaitz aD.Jhae.lus.
Similarly. in the inter€srof establishjngand maintaining their clairns
of jnviolablc lae{ulness,the Brugmanianshave hctd since crinm thar
Creek kdleo 'call' is coSnar€ wirh Old Norsc ,.;/a, and Corhjc ,ara,
'to call,'but not with the Old Norse erymonkdl/a ofEnglish.a/l or iheir
Germanic cognatcs(Middle Dutch. .a//en, Dutch. kdl/en.Old Hish cer-
man .r"//..,J even rhouSh the rt in h?ituh and ha a, bearsno D;oneric
r elat r ons hi $p h a l s o e l e rro th e .l i n k a tn .In conrrast.R o.enmanl osr-
cally dnd rursimoniou:l) concludcd rhal rhe Bmgnanians shoutd have
considered kaleo cognate wi& th€ phonelically and s€mandcalty identical
cermanic words, regardlessof wh€theror not the tsrumaniansatso con-
sid€Iedtaleo cogDatewith heitltn a haitan.ln fact. the world-renowned
linguist Otto Jespersenhad argu€d the sme thing atmost four delades
carlier in an eflon to bring ihe Brugmaniansto rheir s€nses:
If in fie etymotogiesyou p.opN. you do trot obsenc rhe* Ic.ihn sl rules, if,
for inslde, you vennre ro makc cek tal.a .call, equal English ,a1/, iD spile
ol thc Iacr that Gre.k rt in other pords coGspondsto Engjish thenyou in@r
'/,,
the s*€resl punishment of $ience,your erymolosj,is rejsred and you yoursclf
a.e pul oursidcthe pa.leof sious shdents.(Jespersen. quoledin Rosman l99t:
8t )
As Jespersen aiso nol€d, the refusal to agr€e wjth alleged Brusmanian
laws resulled h many linguisrs being osrracized and their papers rej€cted.
As botl Ros€nman(1969) and J€sper*n (1928) logicaily conoluded,
thcrc is no evid€ntially juslifiable reason why ialso and cal cannor be as
cognal€ as they clearly reveal rhey are, regardless of wherher some or
even many oth€r, initial creek *k's corresponded to inirial cermanic
*r's. Again, however,sincerh€ Brugmanians
hav€ insisredrhar rheir sup-
posed science bc inviolably lawful, like chemisrry and physics, re.ogniz-
rng the obvious cognation of *a/po and cal/ has sjmDlv been our of the
Llueslion.
Basedon my own invesligarionsover the last d€cade.ir is verv clear
rhal b) a.socrarjngmany Lnt|n wo.ds beannsan injtral .. wjrh Cermdnic
words bcaring an initial *i, rhe tsrugnanians s€tectivelysampled ihe
rvailable evid€ncein ways that supportedtheir clains ofinviotabte tar-
fulncss,whil€ auempringro artribute thc rcsuttingnultilude of counter-
exarnplcs1o sundry other fa€rors.Fo. insrance,Crimm choseto cosnale
Inc Cermdn rcrb ro have ,tdrca wrrh rhe Lafin verb .ro seize co,rere
krowing llll wcll that the roor *,/'ur- of lhe Latin verb .ro have, llar€le
was l o rh a l o fl d r? r.
' dc nr ic a l
\
Unrecagnizedloot and les srnbolish 2'73
Grinm or the Brugmanians lherefore could and should have infened
thal the English verb &" 'to s€ize,'the Middlc Dutch yetb kippcn'ro
catch,'rhe Old Nors€verb tila 10 snatch,'and the Old- and Middle En-
glish anestors 1c?4, and kepa4 .espectively,of Englishieep'to lay hold
of' wer€ all derivcd from a cermanic roo! for sizinS [*.t + vowel + 2.
jusl as Latin .a/efe had been-This would. however,havc againdisproved
Gdmm's hypolhcsisand now purported law that ir;tial Latin *. invaria-
bly correspond€d |o inidal Gemanic *i- Hence, ncilher Crimm nor ihe
Bmgmaniansafterwardschoseto associale.dpe.. with thc consonanrally
and s€rnantically identical Gernanic words.
Even the most intraclableBrugmaniansmust admil, however,$ar rhe
relarionshipbetween(l) *. and rr, and (2) .p and ., rhey invokcd ro
cognale Lalin cdle/p and Cerman ra,", also exists between. for insrancc:
(l) Latjn caperc afi Lari^ habere (2) Cretman kippen and cermzn hahek
(l) Old English ."rrd, and Old English rarban and (4) Middle Dutch,ti-
I.,|l and Middlc Dutch }€6rfn. Consequently,if.upel" could be cognate
with tbe foregoing Cennan;c words for having, there is no logi€ally ot
cvidentiallyjus.iliable reasonwhy .,/ere could nol also bc cognatewirh
Latin ,a6"/"'have.' Nor is tbere any logically or €videnliallyjuslifiable
reason why thc abovementjonedGermanic words for having could nol
be cognate with th€ abovenenlion€d Germanic words for capturina.
The follovjng passage of the Frequently Asked Questions section of
the lntemer newsgroup.r.,:1drAtrump€is this Brugmanianillogic by cil-
ing as a glowing eiemple ofit lhe samelogic Gdmm usedover lwo c€n-
turi€s ago to deny what he should have considered rhe self-€vident cogna-
tion of habete an\dhaben
At firstslane wemighlrhinktharG€na! iare, andLatinnarerc'have'arcob-
vious cognates.Howev€r,afier noting lhe regularcorrcspondeDce of ceman .i
to Latin '.. we arc forc€dro chdge our ninds, and look to .?per€'eize as a
betler cognatefor tarer. Thus, similarily of words is only a clue, a.d perhrps
a nisleadingone.l,inguistsconclude langoases are relaled.and thusdslve from
a comon ancestor.only if the' find tegulai sound oorespordeEs b€l$eet
I1 evidentlyneveroccuned to theseor any other Brugmanianthal rhc
nolion of .egular sound correspondences' lhey bave b€en invoking for
almost rwo cenruriesnow usually as a euphernisn for inviolable
lawfuhess to deny the cognation ot habere.haben.and many other
equally obvious cognatescould only have been proven by exclud;ns
from evidence$e senantic and literal identity Latjn rrar- = Gennan
*nar-, along wirb many olher identilieso. viftual idenritiestoo numerous
 274 S. R Be att
to evenmetrrion.In other words, the evidencewasselectivetysampted,re_
sultingin the creatiotrofobviouscountercxamples.
tn lacr.a\ alreaJymenrioned. accordinero oneof Cdmm . suDoosed
laws.lhe .p in Lario , dpp'eshoutdcotrespond ro d ! n c,ernaniahen.
I phonelicaliy and semanlically idcntical Latin and cermanic words the
Accordingly, ro explain tbe exisrenceof ,argnt *,, the Brugmanians
invokcd a law koown as Vemer\ Law, nam€d for its discov;rer Kart
Althougha full discussion of Ve.ner,slaw is beyondrhescopcof this
paper.Ihe law essenlially holdsrhJl it a ptE sord5 acccnrl;I on rhe
word\ sccond,rathe. rhaD irs root, syljabtc, as attestedby the word,s
Sanskrilcognale.lh€ hlpolhe\izedsoundrh,fi did not affecrrheconso_
nant lbllowingthe root syttabl€in tlle word'scennanicdescendants in
the way crimm had hypothesized.The tsrugmaniansrhereforeinvoked
Vemer's law to eJ(I'lainthar habenbas a *b, ralher rhan th€ lawfullv
specifi€drl because
r,rpn mus' havebeendenveJlrom a hroorheucal
Proro-Cerrnanic votd ,ha- bti. accenred on iri setond,rarhir rhan rrs
roor. \)lldble.cven thouehhabeah^d no legirimare
Sanskr,rcogndrero
atrestthe applicabililyofVerner'sLrw.
Th€ Brugnanians rhen wenaon to atrib\lLe haben ard caDercto a
hypothcricdlPIE roor tkap lor rrprunn8 and keeping.bur hahcrcro
rbc presumablyunrelared,PIE roor *ghabh-thar purportcdlyyielded
olh€r IE wo.dsfor capturing,k€eping,and having.Thus,jr:st'as rhc
Brugmanians
hadro unparsimooiousty h}polhesizc, rwo. oresumabtr un_
relared.PIL roors(rkerd and ,gherd,ror rhehean rtrarOiffere,t
onty in
vorcng to supporttheir puryorted laws, the Brugmanianshad ro hypoth_
esizf,two, presumably pIE roolsfor captunngandhav;nj thar
unrclated,
differcd o.ly in voicing ro supportthos€laws.
Usingsirnilarlyquesrionabte, ifnor cleadyfallaciousmethods,crilnm
as\o-cialed
rhe Larin word for rhehead.aprr wnh rheOId Engt,shword
healod-head.dgarnpr€lumablypro\anghis hlporhesisrharinrtiatLJun
-( Inrdriably@nespondrlo In'riatCernanic.l. Thes€wordsarc. how_
ever.disybdllic, $hereas (heptE qordfor head.mu\r hatebeen,o bas,c
it wasoriginallymonosyllabic.
crimm rheretore couldand shouldhave
log'cally associaredthe roor cap-ot cdputvtirh the nonosyllabiccerman
word for 'hcad' Kopf znd Kopf,s obvious English cognate col, for a
top, summitor head.rherebydisprovinghis hyporhesis
again.ln faci.
Rosenman otreredro sendth€scandar least100orhercty;ologieslogi-
cally and panimoniouslyassociating
cermanic+k or *c $th creek *1.
Ldrin'r or borhroa tingursrrcs protbs\or
a( a teadrngun^eA y. Thepro,
f€sso..however, rcfusedlo evenlook ar th€mbecausr, ashe pur ir, .They
wouldbc in conflictwilh crinm\ rutest'lherebyegregioustybegging rhe
IL
Utre.o&nize..lfoot anll leg synbotish 275
Indeed, if Grimm or his foliowers had deem€d the above-m€mioned
true cognates fie words stron8ly suggesi or clearly rev€at they a.e, mthcr
$an tI€ 'fake cognates'the Brugmanjanshave b€enclaiming rhey arc,
the Brugmanians would havc ended up wirh a series of consonanra y,
or phonelielly, and s€manticallyidentical, or vjrtually identical, corre.
spondencesstrongly supportilg those cognaiions:
(l) trlin nan"/.. Ccrman haben.Englishha,e.
(2) Larin &pere, Old Enslish .qar, Middl€ Dulch /.lppez. Otd Norse
kippu, Middle English kepan, English nery, English f,/;
(3) Latin.apl, Gerrnan Kopf, Er,slish Mp.
Thesecognationsnot only fully agreeswith Descanej posilion thar any
sciencemust b€ buih on the things that can be known wjth rhe greatest
.Thefrsl
degeeof certainry,it alsoag€eswirh Rosenman's conclusion,
eJlorl in el).t]rolog/ should always be ade with malching consonanb.
Orly if the fit is bad, shouldwe consjderlhat a shifr rt1ayhavetaken
place'(1969:209-210).
Indeed,if Griram or his followershad concludedthat Latln caput,r.as
inde€das coglate wirh Cerrnanl<opland English rry as ir clearly reveals
it is, they would hav€also had mor€ than adequat€groundsfor associal
ins thesewordswith the phonelicallyrcadily associableand semantically
identical Creek kephab'head.' especiallyconsirleringrhe srriking resen
blarce teptule b€arsto Old Enslishl]arla and Sanskir kapala'head.'
DoinS so, ho*ever, would haveprcventedrhe Brugmaniansfrom fram-
ing rhcir purported law specifyingthat the .ph in kephalerr,ust cofte"
spond1oa Germanic*r, and cannotcorrespondto the Yjn Old English
halela ot tljtr,*p ii Larin caprr. Accordingto Brugnanian law, rhe *p, in
kplrale could conespondto the *, in English .o, and Old Norsekrba,;
both of which clearly rev€al their cognation with creek i&rs 'head'
d6pit€ suppos€dlaws holding otherwise.However,ihc initial *c and *,t
id thes€Cermanicwofds could not lawfully correspondto the *k in
kephaleot ktbe. Consequently, the Brusmanians had ro unparsimoni-
ously hypothesizc that the PIE lexiconhad, in addition ro *kapuc,
another,entir€lyunrelatcd,disyllabicword for the head, *ghebh-el-.
whjch pwportedly yieldedrhe Old Norseancestorsa-f of Englishsa61p.
To supponthc cla;m that cemanic *b inva;ably corresponds
ro
Greek *P,4.the Brugrnanians th€n went on to ofphan(a) cr€ck &i/or
'eanhenball'(>l-arin bolrr'round inass')and (b) creek verb rdller)'
'to throw from €achothera.d from the phonerically and semanrically
identicalCermanicwordslor balls(c.9.,Old Norcebdll/, Enslishraa
 21'7
Unrecos'1tttdloot and leg svtholism
216 S. R Bertant

Du,ch 8,//,,,btrll:.lllip1,fij;,1igLlf-'ril',1
Germ:"
roi.ordHitsh
dnd
i:::i *i:il:"1'lilJ: ::[":il;'1":]i::Tl;'""d//etr
;",r
u:'irmn:: ii:Tliifi,'#:'j$'il'',;oo"*
" "*
ab"e.
rhe l*r':*-ii+d#Jft1 ":r!;ffi
r*n'n'ilri:;:mri;
i$Jlfi +i
;".".':ff
m'::,:
*:*ilu'lr:l::]li:l*ru ti:
:::*",1t :,i#*iill
il:;:i;;;
''.i;.;iame
caffefromvenus
rromrvrznandwomen Jrlin
ilrfr;J"ii]i"':r."fi iir"ilt:
!i:.Lirp;*!Ji
i"li*,ri ralt,o .r'. g'o-a cverydmeit
isdrop
:ilms't';xr:'il.Tili*iilili:il.['Ji:']'""ir:"iil:
i
l{"-":;1:i;*YTITt;lLil**l:.**'g;il1*..**:#
'rir;h,,n{m*niff
from linking men to women and a eommon
dn
*itJi*ii*+**:"'i#:ii:*a
li
}"":"-il',,1il1:J';lP;:il ;T.:'"';HIiHdi:{*-xTrig#
i"Lt*""".1
ih; rcsultingeryrnologjes'
*ordsihaneeminglr
t"',*a" of unarre'ted 'upponed
I rt'arpt'en"**" lil:l:::i
Los."pscrfvurg hdve
:l;;;";rrhre ,n ,sorarion

il:t'jlltli*i{iltl*r:H'r:'inrtt
6;
ili|ii
':i;s;i1"ru;;*";ru;:",1'*;m:*l
3. The Brugmnirn detensc
js*rml':l; fl
l'illl'lli;
i"ii'"?,iTH'.r;ilq i"fi::i:iq*ffi
tHif,ili21,1#l';il!li
[l:"1"",'",'iil ;:*ltttr"
Iff$,xl;.";"li,'";r"n:ffi
illi**il:.;*f1*J""JH'H;
:ii:i,:;*rx,*Jxr:;i:Ji::i':1'.i[".,:""T]:T'":1":;:l
c'fieailv.rheBrusmani'nshale heldthat:
[ui+1r*t*i':i'',+,
*'mt',t*istirm
'lifr#:l,ffii#i'j'.'1ffiritr''r"*
ili:t;'J**::jf ,fff*{'i*ll'ffi
th; formula aould read:

arterthe hab- =habl=t

r ;T:'::1"X1t"1"'"*n€d in eachranguage
ro b€retained have have
lanauaqebccarnedjstinctlylE: and
,, ii!" i'",J"ir."r"" haierobc fahecognate'
:ir'fi.'ilTt"'#iTill"T::,ri'#"1"1:"illii3
:[}lff#i"{iril*+rili'iii';"rr#"ii$*itri:};"H:il:
ffi";;.;;;G; hale s;mprv that iheir findingwas
-concrudcd
lli:T""il::'l
";.ld
$JJITT:I:'ff
;?Hffiir,;#v:iJlr:"J
bali ball