Re: [tied] More on the crummy sanguis/asrk connection

On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 22:41:21 , "Glen Gordon"
<glengordon01@...> wrote:

>
>>>/asrk/. Whatever. Point is, the -k/-j- (which would be IE -*g^)
>>
>>Actually, it could be *k^, *g^, *g^h, *k, *g, *gh, *kw, *gw or *ghw.
>
>Well, isn't that convenient for someone who wishes to connect the word to
>everything under the sun. This is not what Burrow was saying, but whatever
>makes you happy.

Re-read Burrow. Start with the allowed final consonants. Then
consider that the -k in <ásrk> occurs *only* finally.

>>>Nothing here is substantiable within the context of known IE >>grammar.
>>
>>Known by you, perhaps. Lat. <sanguis>, <sanguinis> is obviously an
>>-en-derivative from the *oblique* stem of *h1ésh2rgw. That is,
>>*h1sh2ángw- + -en-. Cf. a similar case in inguen, inguinis "groin"
>>from *neghwr, *nghwen- "kidney, testicle" (Grk. thematized <nephros>,
>>OHG <nioro>, n-derivation from the non-oblique stem).
>
>Come now, Miguel. Known by who aside from you? I will ask yet again: "What
>on earth is this suffix for??" If you can't explain it, then admit your
>inadequacy instead of stalling and confusing the debate.
>
>There are large fifty-mile leaps from /asser/ to **/sen/ to /sanguis/. While
>/asser/ and /sanguis/ are recorded, an intermediate word like **/sen/ is
>nowhere to be seen on any written document, Latin or otherwise. This in
>itself is a giant problem. Even if it were existent, the purpose for the
>**-K- suffix is also lacking, making the solution entirely inconsiderable.

What on earth are you talking about? **/sen/?

Look, there *is* no -k (*-gw) suffix. It's part of the stem (I
suspect *ng was originally **N, a velar nasal).

The paradigm was:

Nom. *h1ésh2rgw ~ *h1ésh2r (with loss of the final stop)
Gen. *h1sh2ángw(e/o)s

This should have given Latin *esar, *sanguis [and comparable forms in
the other IE languages], a paradigm clearly too irregular to survive.
In LAtin, a new nominative was made from teh oblique form, using the
suffix *-en: *sanguens, *sanguenes > sanguis, sanguinis. (The form
<aser> may continue the old nominative somehow, or is more likely a
borrowing). In the other languages, the word was regularized
following the pattern of the normal -r/-n- stems, but in different
ways: Hittite *h1ésh2r (> <eshar>), *h1ésh2(a)nos (> <eshanas>),
Sanskrit: *h1és[h2]rgw (> <asrk>), *h1s[h2]nós (> <asnás>), etc.

The same goes for the neuters in *-nt, such as *ye:kwrt, *ye:kwntos.
They were regularized according to the pattern of the neuters in *-n >
*-r/-n-, except in Greek, where the regularization worked the other
way (<he:par>, <he:patos>; but also <onoma>, <onomatos>, probably
because of a confusion between *-men and *-ment). Only in Sanskrit
was the original distinction maintained, at least in a few words (as
-t in the nom./acc of <yákrt> and <s'ákrt>).


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...