Since some characters got corrupted, I'm reposting.
--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "whetex_lewx" <whetex_lewx@...>
wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
> wrote:
> > *h3(o)kW- is a likely explanation of the "prothetic" o- in Gk.
> opHru:s
> > and Slavic *(o)bry.
> Why *h3kW-bHr-u- is expressed as h3 but not as h2? In Lithuanian h3
> mutates as -uo-, but this reconstructed h3kw- is related to akis
> (eye) (short -a- vowel).
> Latin acies - of the eye? Sanscrit ak-; Latvian acis, Armenian aku
> and etc...
Lithuanian <akìs> (as well as Latvian <acs>, Old Prussian (pl.)
<ackis>, (sg.) (corrupted) <agins>) continues Proto-Baltic *akis,
from PIE *h3okW(-i)- (i.e. the full grade rather than the zero grade
*h3kW- occuring in compounds). Baltic *a is a normal reflex of PIE *
(h3)o, since Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian (with a reservation
considering Brugmann's Law) have merged the reflexes of PIE *o and
*a, so your Baltic and Old Indic examples are undecisive. I don't
know much about Armenian and can't comment on the history of <akn>
(for what it's worth, there's a short note in
Beekes's "Introduction", saying that "[PIE *o yields Arm.] a in open
syllable under certain conditions"). PIE *oh3 (not *h3o) before a non-
sonorant indeed normally yields Lith. úo (not sure about *oh3 before
a sonorant).
The basic (and etymological) meaning of Latin <acie:s> (< PIE *h2ak-
'sharp') is 'sharp edge/point', 'keenness of look/glance, sharpness
of vision' -> 'pupil of the eye' -> (poet.) 'eye' being its obvious
secondary (allegoric) meanings.
> Couldn't be eye in PIE not h3kw-, but akw- (short a
> sound, which became o in Latin and relicts of short -a- are visible
> only in secondary Latin forms?
Obviously not.
> *h3bHruh-; bHruh- may be related to Lithuanian bru:ks^nys (line,
> German strich), brez^ti (to line, German zeichnen, ritzen).
> Also
> Russian brovka (brov` - eye brush) related to Lithuanian briauna -
> edge.
The situation with the words you mention seems to be rather confusing.
<bru:ks^ny~s> 'line' obviously belongs to the nest of
<brau~kti> 'drag, wipe etc', <brùkti> 'thrust', <bru:~kis> 'stroke',
continuing (with their Latvian, Old Prussian, Slavic and a handful of
probable non-Balto-Slavic cognates) PIE *bHr(o)uk(^)- 'push, press
(and drag)'.
<briaunà> 'edge' may (along with Z^em. brùne: 'eyebrow', unexpected
(dial.) <br(i)ónyti> 'scratch' and -- according to the Leiden's site -
- possibly OIc. <brún> 'ege, side' and OIr. <brú> 'edge, bank') may or
may not be related to the *h3(-)bHruh- etymon (also reflected in Lith.
(dial.) <bruvìs> 'eyebrow'), to which Russ. <bróvka> 'edge'
(Sl. *brovUka <- *bry 'eyebrow', G. *brUve) obviously belongs. We
also have Lith. <br(i)áuti(s)> 'push, squeeze (oneself into)',
probably continuing PIE *bHreuh- 'push, break, cut', which looks
like the *bHreu- underlying *bHr(o)uk(^)- but with another root
extension (*//bHreu-h-// ~ *//bHreu-k(^)-//) and which may be related
to the probable second component of *h3kW-bHruh-.
As if the matters were not already enough complicated, Lith.
<bré:z^ti> 'draw a line, scratch' belongs to the ablauting root nest
serving as a Schulebeispiel of the Lithuanian secondary ablaut
(especially proliferating next to sonorants):
<bré:z^ti> : <brìz^e:s> 'kind of harrow' : <bry~z^is> '?' (Girdenis's
example, but I don't know the word), <brúoz^as> 'line, stroke;
trait', <braiz^ýti> 'draw', <bráiz^yti> 'scratch',
<bru:~z^inti> 'rub', <brau~z^ti> '?' etc. Pokorny mentions <bré:z^ti>
under lemma *bre:i- (*bHrehi-?) 'cut (to pieces etc)', but it can
equally well continue PIE *bHreg^- 'break' or already mentioned
*bHreuh- 'push, break, cut'. The probability of the late (influenced
by secondary ablaut patterns) contamination of etymologically
different roots is also can't be excluded.
At last, for all these words a common root etymology (*bHer- 'cut')
can be suggested.
Sergei