Mixing of Oil

Derivation of Latin from Doric Greek is not problematic. Very Old Latin (7th or 6th cent. BCE) would have borrowed the word from Doric and retracted the accent; the resulting *élaiva: would have undergone post-accentual -ai- > -ei- and /e/ > /o/ preceding the back allophone of /l/ in Old Latin; at some point the Penultimate Law displaced first-syllable accentuation; in Classical Latin -ei- was monophthongized to -i:- and the nom. sg. -a: was shortened to -a. All of these changes are regular and have parallels in other words.

Douglas G. Kilday

Of course, olive is a derivation of Greek leibo (pour in), Latin libatio, Serbian u-livati (pour in): cf. Latin proluo /wash away, to wash out the stomach/ and Serbian proliv /diarrhea/, prolivati /pour out, disgorge/; Greek elaion (olive-oil), Latin oleum (oil), Serbian ulje (oil); we can see also that Greek λιπος/lipos (lard) has been derived from the same Bel-Gon basis as Grek leibo, Lat. libatio or Serbian verbs ulivati (pour in), livati (pour); Farther etymology of these words is completely transparent in Serbo-Slavic languages: Serb. oblak (cloud), obala (coast), obljubiti (stick close, together; from oblo /round/ + biti /strike, beat/like water that beats coast banks), po-ljubiti (kiss).

I hope, now you are able to grasp the farther relation among English words love, lips and oil. If not, do not be shy, feel free to ask me :sherlock:

It would be interesting to mention that the Aramaic word m@shach (Hebrew mashach /oil/, Arabic masahha /smear, wipe/) appeared to be closely related to the Serbo-Slavic words mazati (smear; Russ. mazatь, Pol. mazać; Sorb. mazaś) and mast (lard). The history of the word mazati (smear) is absolutely clear: it originated from the reduplicated ur-syllable Gon; i.e. from nanos (naneti deposit, silt); nanos => namaz (nasalized nanas; deposit => smear). Now, we can see that whatever we deposit or silt up as if with mud must be mixed; hence the similarity between Serb. mešati (mix), Latin misceo miscere (mix), Greek μιξις (mixing); cf. Greek μιξοφυης and Serbian mešavina (both with the meaning "of mixed nature").

Taking in a serious consideration the above mentioned words it seems unlikely that the word mask has been borrowed from Arabic maskhara (buffoon), because the original (primeval) masks were a mixture of a colored mud, which had been deposited (put) on human face; and putting the mud on face demands mixing as well as mazanje (smearing; Slav. mazati smear).

It seems that only one question remained still unanswered: is the Semitic word mashach (oil) a ma- prefixed zeit/zait (oil) or the word zait (oil) has been formed by apheresis; i.e. by the ommision of the initial syllable ma-?

I would say the answer is self-imposing because Semitic vocabulary contains the word mzg (mixture; Hebrew meh'zeg mixture; Tur. mizac, Per. mazaj, âmikhtan).

Explore posts in the same categories: Comparative Linguistics

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: