Miguel:
>Yes. We have Vedic <�sr.k>, G. <asn�s>; [...] all be more or less
> >regularly derived from a heteroclitic r/n-stem *h1�sh2r, *h1sh2n�s.
> >Remains the -k in the Vedic nom.sg. and Latin <sanguis>, G. ><sanguinis>,
>which can be explained as *h1�sh2ngw and *h1sh2�ngw-en-, >respectively.
I know that *esxr is reconstructed firmly but I challenge your **?�sxngW.
The -k is secondarily added in /�sr.k/ and the fact that we don't see the
velar in the genitive while still seeing the _heteroclitic_ in use (formed
by FINAL *-n > *-r, remember??) proves this outright.
As for /sanguis/... The word is more likely to be derived from an *n-infixed
verb. Relating it to *esxr is very problematic with a made-up **-gW suffix
to explain. Whatever the case, /sanguis/ cannot be linked with /�sr.k/ and
the two words don't even conform to common declensional forms! You make no
sense.
>The PIE form can thus be posited as *h1esh2engw- (*h1�sh2ngw- /
> >*h1sh2�ngw-). I've just compared to this the Proto-Kartvelian form
> >*zisxl- "blood" (Geo. sisxl-, Megr. zisxir-, Laz dicxir-, dincxir-; >Svan
>zisx), if "reduplicated" from pPK **?isx@... (vs. something like >pPIE
>**?isxangu).
If I were you, I wouldn't apologize for mentioning Nostratic etymologies so
much as apologizing for your untempered imagination. If there truely is a
connection between IE *esxr and Kartvelian *zisxl-, it is out of borrowing
(IE > Kartvelian). Such complex phonetics are not inherited so completely as
this after 10,000 years but can be borrowed so easily after a couple of
centuries of contact. Let's give that idea a rest.
The Nostratic word for "blood" has not been convincingly reconstructed as of
yet. Bomhard reconstructs *k[h]ur- out of IE kreux-, Dravidian *kuruti
"bloody, red" and Sumerian /gurun/, /kurin/ "blood"... but I'm not the
trusting kind and with so much potential for Sanskrit loanwords to be
mistakingly reconstructed for Dravidian out of convenience, I worry about a
supposed Dravidian *kuruti. This leaves Sumerian and IE. IE *qreux-
(kreuH2-), according to my ideas on IndoTyrrhenian would derive from an
earlier form **kar�uxe but because of the medial diphthong *-eu-, it cannot
be derived from any protoSteppe form (Steppe **karuxV becomes IndoT **karexV
!!). I must conclude that *qreux- is a late derivative of a smaller root
*qor- (*kor-) "to cut, to chop", making this Nostratic reconstruction
unrealistic.
Well, I must cook supper now but I have a dilemma. Does anyone have any
culinary suggestions involving a bottle of beets, two potatoes and an aging
carrot? Hmm, looks like I'm havin' bootleg borscht tonight :(
- gLeN
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download :
http://explorer.msn.com