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

It may be of interest to some members (also to Miguel when he's back) that Adams and Mallory (EIEC) separate *ngWen- 'gland, groin, swelling in region of groin' (including ade:n, ökkr and inguen) from *negWHrós 'kidney' (they reconstruct the latter with a parenthesised initial *h1 which is not warranted by any attested forms, and don't postulate a heteroclitic neuter). They don't so much as suggest that the words might be related.

On the other hand, EIEC supports the analysis of sanguen- as *h1sh2an-gW-en-, though neither the *-gW- nor the double nasal extension is justified; nor is any parallel case offered. I suppose the argument would boil down to "Skt. -k in asr.k is a mysery and sanguen is a mystery, so maybe they're the same mystery".

Piotr

----- Original Message -----
From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal

To: cybalist@egroups.com

Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 5:14 PM

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

The difficulties of connecting <ade:n> and <ökkr> (not necessarily <inguen>, of course) to <nioro> and <nephro:n> are well known. Pokorny, and de Saussure, Brugmann, Hirt and Bezzenberger (quoted by Boisacq) didn't think them unsurmountable. Be that as it may, I don't see why the etymology of <re:ne:s> should in any way be an argument for divorcing <inguen> from *nehgwr/*nghwen-. Anttila's conjecture is interesting, but metathesis is always a doubtful (circular) recourse. I have no idea what the etymology of <re:ne:s> is. Why not *re:it-n-o-, cf. Lith. <ríetas> "Oberschenkel, Lende", OCS <ritI> "bum")?