From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 27537
Date: 2003-11-24
>The analysis of *k^wo:n as *pk^wo:n = *pk^u-o:n (derived from *pek^u-A Hoffmann suffix in this word crucially depends on forms with long u:
>'livestock') has already been discussed on Cybalist. It has occurred to me
>that the etymology fits in very well with the known patterns of IE compound
>formation. One only needs to assume that the word is really a compound in
>which the second element is the "Hoffmann suffix" *-hVn-. (I deliberately
>omit the laryngeal index in order to avoid getting sidetracked into
>discussing a minor issue.) Transparent formations with *-hVn- can to all
>intents and purposes be treated as compounds. If the first element is a stem
>with ablaut allomorphs, it exhibits the nil-grade (characteristically if
>oddly stressed in the "strong" cases, as in familiar compounds with *h1sú-,
>*kWtwr.'- ~ *kWtrú-, *sm.'-, *n.'-, etc.). The second element is declined as
>follows:
>
>nom.sg *'-ho:n
>acc.sg. *'-hon-m.
>gen.sg. *-hén-s --> *-h(e)n-o/es
>loc.sg. *-hén-i
>gen.pl. *-hn-óm
>
>A clear example of such a compound is *h2jú-hon-/*h2ju-hén-/*h2ju-hn-ó-
>(from *h2oju- 'vital energy, life, youth'), becoming *júwon-/*juwén-/*ju:n-
>after the loss of the laryngeals. cf. Skt. yúvan-/yu:n- 'young man'. A less
>clear case is *dHg^Hm.'-hon- 'human being' (from *dHég^Ho:m/*dHg^Hó:m
>'earth', with prevocalic "syllabic" *m. realised as *[m.m]), which became
>*g^Hm.'-on- (OLat. hemo: > Lat. homo:, OE guma) or *g^Hmón- (Lith.
>z^muo~)Note the simplification of the initial cluster in both. The latter
>variant resulted from the reinterpretation of *g^Hm.'o:n as the "Lindeman
>treatment" of an underlyingly monosyllabic word (like *dijé:us as a
>disyllabic realisation of *dje:us). Each stem variant spawned its own
>constellation of case forms, obscuring the original pattern.
>
>Hypothetical *pk^ú-hon- could be expected to produce the following forms,
>among others:
>
>nom.sg. *pk^ú-ho:n > *k^úwo:n (cf. Gk. kúo:n)
>acc.sg. *pk^ú-hon-m. > *k^úwon-m.
>gen.sg. *pk^u-hén-s > *k^uén(o)s etc.
>gen.pl. *pk^u-hn-óm > *k^u:nóm (Cf. Av. su:nam)
>
>Since the compound was obscured very early and the simplification of the
>cluster *pk^- took place already in PIE, we have no trace of the initial *p-
>even in Iranian (which normally has *fs^u- as the weak form of *pasu- <
>*pek^u-). A similar case is *k^m.tóm < *dk^m.tóm, exhibiting no "thorny"
>reflexes of the initial anywhere. At first blush, the short-vowelled weak
>cases such as gen.sg. *k^unós (Gk. kunós, Lith s^une`s) or *k^únos (Skt.
>s'únah.) might seem to rule out *-hn-. However, they difficulty disappears
>when one realises that they are late secondary forms based on the new
>underlying stem *{k^won-} extracted from the nom.sg. *k^uwo:n interpreted as
>a Lindeman form (hence post-PIE *k^(u)wó:n, *k^wónm., *k^unós, *k^unóm).
>
>We have seen that the evolution of *dHg^Hm.-hon- went along similar lines.
>Why wasn't *h2jú-hon- refashioned in the same way? The reason is plain: the
>phonotactics of most IE languages rule out a Lindeman reinterpretation of
>*júwo:n by prohibiting monosyllabic *jwon-. Consequently, the stem continued
>to be analysed in post-PIE terms as *{juhVn} or *{juwVn-} (realised as
>*júwo:n, *júwonm., *juwén(o)s, *ju:nóm).
>
>The compound analysis of the 'dog' word explains in a simple and natural way
>its apparently aberrant -- actually archaic -- forms and accounts for the
>observed range of variants (*k^won- fares worse in these respects). The
>semantics of 'livestocker' --> 'sheepdog' --> 'dog' is not particularly
>problemetic. Any thoughts?