On Sat, 20 Jul 2002 18:25:58 +0200 (MET DST), Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen
<
jer@...> wrote:
>I have done you wrong by misreading your Arm. statement to be also about
>the instrumental. Sorry about that.
It's OK, I wasn't very clear. The ending -oj^ is a Locative in the
ea-stems (plus Ablative -oj^e^ < -oj^+ *eti), but a general oblique
(Gen./Dat./Loc. and Abl.) in kin ~ knoj^(e^) and mi ~ mioj^(e^).
I was torn between associating Armenian -oj^ with the Sanskrit/Slavic
instrumental in *-oyh2ah1 > *-oyya:, or with the Sanskrit
Gen./Dat./Loc. in *-oyeh2- > *-oya:-. The former option is more
attractive phonetically (Arm. -yy- > -j^-), while the latter fits
better with the function of -oj^ in Armenian. Phonetically, come to
think of it, I'm not aware (yet) of anything that might be
counterevidence to a development *-oy > -oj^ in the (secondary)
Auslaut, so perhaps Armenian -oj^ is best compared to the Sanskrit
oblique forms (Instrumental excepted).
>The "ea-stems" alternate between io-stem inflection in the sg. and ea-stem
>inflection in the pl., with the exception of the instr. sg. in -eaw which
>is rather obviously back-formed from the instr.pl. in -eawk'. Therefore,
>the type is basucally o-stem in the sg., a-stem in the pl., that must be
>old thematic neuters. Therefore, if they have loc.sg -oj^, the -o- is not
>at all unexpected and there is little basis for diagnosing it as a
>feminine sign.
The fact remains that -oj^ is *only* found in former feminines (or
words secondarily attracted to a feminine declension, such as neuter
io-stems), which is hard to explain what we're dealing with is a
suffix *-dhi.
>I kept knoj^ and mioj^ out of the discussion because their relevance is
>unclear. Birgit Olsen, The Noun in Biblical Armenian (Mouton de Gruyter
>1999) 172, arrives at an analysis by bringing in the word aloj^ 'lamb'
>which she derives from *H1lm.bhiH2, taking -amy-/-any- to yield regularly
>-oj^- (via a nasal o).
In view of Gmc. *h1lombh-es-, could it be *h1lombh + -ih2?
>In like fashion she then derives *oj^ from gen.
>*sm.-yaH2-s (or dat. *sm.-yaH2-ay, etc), taking it to have been
>secondarily adjusted to the nom. mi, the result being mioj^. For 'woman'
>she departs from a vr.ki:s-type extension also underlying Gk. gunaik-
>(whose -k- she gets from a nom. with *-iH2-s > *-ik-s before), this giving
>gen. *gWn.H2íH2os > *kany- > *koj^ -> *kinoj^ > knoj^.
For <mi>, I suggest a transfer to the (j)a:-stems, based on N. *smih2
> smia (reinterpreted as *sm-ya:), oblique forms *smyoya:s/*smyoya:i >
mioj^.
As to <gin>, the word has several distinct stems in the Armenian
paradigm (NA kin, GDLAb knoj^(-e^), I. kna-w, pl. NA kanay-, pl. obl.
kanan-). The NA can be either from *gWe:nh2 or *gWen-ah2 or even
*gWenh2-ah2, but on the basis of the instrumental (kina:- + -bhi), it
seems likely that it's one of the latter two (*gWen(h2)ah2-). The
plural NA has the same stem as the Greek oblique gunaik-, which I
prefer to reconstruct as *gWn.h2-a-ih2, with (thematic?) vowel
inserted between -h2 and -ih2. The plural oblique is an n-stem
(analogical).
If the singular stem (NA and I) is *gWéneh2, the oblique knoj^ is in
my analysis comparable to the Sanskrit oblique stem of the compound
a:-stems (i.e. *gWen-o-yeh2-os > *gWenoya:s > kinoy > knoj^ /
*gWen-o-yeh2-i > *gWenoya:i > kinoy > knoj^).
Which is why in my previous message I erroneously referred to *gwenh2-
as an eh2-stem (it is only in some languages, e.g. Slavic). The
original paradigm must have been *gWén&2 ~ *gWé:nh2 (with "Szemerényi
lengthening" due to *-Rh2; = Skt. ja(:)ni), G. *gWn.h2ás (= Skt.
radical a:-stem gnás[*]).
[*] Thus Macdonell (for já: "child"), but Pokornmy gives G. gná:s for
"divine woman"?
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...