You cannot discuss historical linguistics without discussing etymology. You cannot limit your analysis to strictly semantics only if you want to study historical linguistics, because meanings shift, they change.
I did not start any historical linguistics theories yet! Only pure linguistic basis. I understand that meanings are changed, but they change according to LOGIC.
One word transfers to another, but there is a relation between named objects. Otherwise how to name new object? Take some characteristics of old one (shape, color, size, action etc) and give same or changed name to new one. In such way crescent takes characteristic of “growing” from initial root *ker-. Isn’t it?
Because it developed as "to separate" > "to break, crack" > "cliff; fissure" > "mountain; rock, stone".
Yes! And it is logical. Separation is breaking/cracking of something. Fissure is a result of such action. Cliff is a break of shore (BeReG in Russian). Rock and stone are cliff and shore material usually. It is correct and logic.
So as I said between any words of same root such logic MUST present. What was said about the moon is little bit different. It is PAN linguistic correlation. It answers how did human wondered to name first objects.
For example “a stone”. If you never had a word for it, by living in desert, how you will name the stone once you meet it? You will find something already known to you and named. Look at the fullmoon. It looks like a stone and it was available for observation even for desert people. So it is logic to take existed name for the moon and name the stone accordingly. Later I will show real examples fixed by etymologists.
PIE. *k̑er- "to grow" and *k̑er- "head; horn" are two different, unrelated roots.
Sorry, but it even sounds tricky. *k̑er- and *k̑er- are completely phonetically same. Objects and derivatives are very close, but roots are unrelated…? It is same as trying to argue that A letter is unrelated to A letter. I know that linguists accept such “logic”, but this makes the linguistics a quasi-science )
My effort is to make linguistics same precise as mathematics. When rules are surpass exclusions. But not vice versa.
From my point of view, if one root *ker- gives word and meaning “crescent” and another root *ker- gives word and meaning “horn”. And then crescent is full graphic analogue of horns, it means that linguists make a mistake by declaring those roots unrelated.
Lets fix such mistakes together. If we will not question legitimacy of existing theories, we could never receive new ones. More accurate and precise.
Thank you for your attention! I enjoy the discussion with expert as you are.
Just take a look, how ancient people purely understood the graphic relation between the moon and objects the call divine. All human religions are inherit same logic. They symbolize visible “god” in form of horns, nimbus, G-letter, boat, cup and crescent itself. I don’t understand how modern human miss this similarity… It is truly said: if you want to hide something good, just put it in most visible place.
