Re: [tied] Terminology (Re: Piotr-)

31-08-03 09:12, alex wrote:

> The whole set you are talking about should be:
> Esbenios, Esbenus, Hesbenus ( in my opinion the same name written in
> several manners)
> Betesbios, Outasbios
> These are the whole I know; I should be thankfully to you if you -
> knowing more of them - will show them here.
> We have to keep in minde that the Betesbios, Outasbios cannot be
> componded from the same words as Esbenus, I mean, if in one of this
> words any particle should mean "horse" then apparently just in the
> Betesbios and Outasbios. But I guess none of them has this root as
> compositional part.

Your logic is unfathomable. So, say, Greek Leukippos, Hipparchos and
Hippias can't contain the same onomastic element because their structure
is different?

Esbenus is not a compound but a derived word. Adjectival derivatives of
this type are a dime a dozen in Indo-European. Cf. Gaul. Epona, Skt.
As'vin-, etc. The precise meaning of Betesbios etc. (I could add
Kakasbos) may be impossible to recover (of course one can theorise
without being able to prove one's interpretation: e.g. *wet(o)-ek^wijos
'having yearling horses'). The important thing is that they belong to
recognisable onomastic types and that those types occur also in
languages areally connected with Thracian (especially Greek and Iranian).

See also http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/14925

> The words which are known for *ek'uus- are:
>
> Skt: asva, Avest: aspa; Lit: as^va; Leth: es^va; Old Prus: asa(< aspa)

Spare us your linguistic. The correct version of the above line would be:

Skt. as'va-; Av. aspa-; OLith. as^va ~ es^va 'mare', as^vis 'foal'; OPr.
aswinan 'horse milk'. I wonder why you chose just these languages.
Reflexes of *h1ek^wos are found in many other groups

> One can argue in Thracian the "n" is an infix there or a part of a
> suffix thus esb-enus or esbe-nus if one want to have there a horse. If
> one choice "Esbenus" then Outasbios and Betesbios have in common with
> Esbenos just the cluster "-esb-".
> Is this enough for being sure this particle "esb" is indeed from PIE
> cluster *-kwuu-"?

Not *-kwuu- (why anything so strange??) but *h1ek^wo-. And yes, I'm
pretty sure what it is, just as I'm sure that the second element of
Glaukippos is the 'horse' word.

> About "Arzos, Arsos" ( < PIE arg'-) this should be the actualy "ArgeS"
> in Rom. The pure question of logic is how do the Rom. have the word with
> "-ge-" inside? If the Thracians/Dacians used "arzos/arsos" the Romans
> could get just this form from them, the Greek too, the comming migrators
> too. I very doubt the Goths/Gepides or the Romans ( as the only centum
> speakers in that space after Roman conquest) have ever thought: "Aha!
> The Dacians use Arzos and this word is derived from PIE *arg'-, thus we,
> as centum speakers have to say "arg-" to this river". The slavs as satem
> group should have got it too in the same manner with "z/s" and there is
> no way of making of "arzos/arsos" an "ArgeS" in Rom.

Who says that the name of the River Argesh is ultimately Thracian? It
doesn't even have to be Dacian. Do you seriously believe the Dacians
were the first IE-speakers in what is now Romania? If, however, the name
_is_ Dacian, the *g^ in *h2arg^- would probably have become *dz (related
to Alb. <dh>). This is possibly what lurks beneath ancient Ordessos (for
*ardzes^- < h2arg^-es-jo-), in which Romanian substituted /dZ/ for /dz/,
perhaps through distant assimilation to /S/.

Piotr