Re: [tied] The name of the name

From: Mate Kapović
Message: 47474
Date: 2007-02-15

On Čet, veljača 15, 2007 12:55 am, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal reče:
> The material
>
> Skt. ná:ma, G. ná:mnas
> Arm. anun, G. anuan
> Grk. ónoma, ónuma, énuma, G. onómatos
> Alb. emër ~ emën
> Lat. no:men, G. no:minis
> Umbr. nome, Abl. nomne
> OIr. ainm(m) n-, G. anm(a)e
> Goth. namo:
> OE nama (m.)
> OFr no:mia "to name"
> OPr emnes
> Slav jImeN
> ToA ńom
> ToB ńem, pl. ńemna
> Hitt. la:man
>
> Discussion
>
> As shown by Arm. (a-) and Grk. (o-, e-), the word started
> with a laryngeal. Since Greek o- may be the result of Umlaut
> (enoma > onoma), e- has more chances of being original, and
> therefore the laryngeal was */h1/-

The logic of this completely eludes me. Since Greek o- *may* be secondary,
it *is* secondary? Come on... And you completely ignore Armenian.

> Next comes */n/. Hittite l- is likely to be the result of
> dissimilation (*na:man > la:man). Tocharian ń- at first
> sight would appear to indicate a root vowel *e: (+h1ne:mn >
> ńem/ńom), which is impossible, but if the initial laryngeal
> is indeed *h1, Toch. ń- may simply be a special development
> of *h1n-, cf. *h3n- > m- in the word for nail *h3noghW- >
> TochA. <maku>, B <mekwa>.
>
> The root vowel varies between /o/ when stressed and zero
> when unstressed.
>
> Whether there was an additional laryngeal after the root
> vowel is a matter of some debate. Sihler, for instance,
> denies it, explaining the /o:/ in Latin <no:men>,
> <cogno:men> by analogical influence from *g^noh3- "know".
> Skt. /a:/ can be from *o (Brugmann), Armenian /u/ likewise
> (*o > u before nasal), Hittite /a:/ can show normal
> lengthening of a stressed vowel. The laryngeal is only
> required to explain the Germanic verbal forms with /o:/
> (e.g. OFr. <no:mia> above). At the same time short /o/ is
> shown directly by Greek, Germanic, Umbrian and perhaps
> Tocharian (PIE /o/, /e:/ > PToch. /e/, while /o:/ would
> rather give /a:/).
>
> However, it's hard to imagine that the suffix in this word
> would _not_ be the ubiquitous *-men, and if so, that would
> leave the root as an impossible *h1nV- (no PIE root can be
> CCV).

Who says the suffix is not just *-n? If you want to go deeper, cf. Uralic
*nimi where you have -m-, is that also a *-men stem in Uralic?

Also, Sanskrit <na:ma> _can_ come from *no:mn.,
> Hittite /a:/ _can_ come from long /o:/, the development of
> PToch /e/, /o/ and /a:/, especially in the neighbourhood of
> nasals and labials, is not quite clear, the reduction of /m/
> in Armenian <anun> is easier to understand if we depart from
> */ano:mn./ rather than */anomn./, Greek /o/ can come from
> vocalized *h3, and so could Germanic /a/. Umbrian <nome>
> (*/o:/ > /u:/ in Oscan and Umbrian), assuming it's from a
> late inscription in the Roman alphabet (the old Umbrian
> alphabet had no /o/) _could_ be due to Latin influence.
>
> I would therefore prefer to reconstruct the root as
> *h1nóh3-, oblique *h1nh3-, with suffix *-men-. The paradigm
> would have been typically amphidynamic, and is faithfully
> reflected (apart from the levelled root shape na:m-, and the
> fixed accent) in Sanskrit:
>
> NA *h1nóh3-mn. = ná:ma
> G *h1nh3-mn-ós = ná:mnas
> L *h1nh3-mén-i = ná:mani
> pl *h1nóh3-mn-h2 = ná:ma:(ni)
>
> Likewise Arm. anun < anú:(w)an < &no:mn., G. anuan <
> anu:(w)ános < *&1no:mn.(n)ós [or, as Olsen suggests,
> replacement of the suffix *-m(e)n- by *-m(e)nt-, as in
> Greek, and special development of -nt-]; Latin no:men,
> no:minis; Hitt. *no:mn. > *na:man > la:man, etc.
>
> In my view, this reflects earlier:
>
> NA *hnú:x-man
> G *hnu:x-mán-âs
> L *hnu:x-mán-a
> pl *hnú:x-man-x
>
> (or perhaps *tnú:k-man, etc.), with the regular reflex of
> the pre-PIE vowels (**u: > *ó ~ zero, **a: > *o, **a > *é ~
> zero), labialization of *k/*x to *xW = *h3 after *u(:),
> amphidynamic stress-shift in the G (and Ins/Abl) sg.
> (*hnu:x-mán-âs > *hn&x-m&n-á:s > *h1nh3-mn-ós), etc.
>
> Three additional questions remain.
>
> (1) The vocalization of laryngeals and nasals in the zero
> grade forms appears to be erratic (perhaps we can expect
> nothing else in an initial cluster *h1nh3-mn-): we have
> Greek *&1n&3mn.(t) > <onoma> with vocalization of both
> laryngeals, Germanic *n&mo:n > <namo:> with vocalization of
> the second laryngeal, and OIr. and Slavic *n.(:)men > <ainm>
> ~ <jImeN> with vocalization of the nasal.
>
> (2) Why do we find so many paradigms with the zero-grade
> forms generalized throughout? If the above analyis is
> correct, Greek, Albanian(?), Celtic, Germanic and
> Balto-Slavic have replaced a perfectly sensible NAsg.
> *h1nóh3-mn. with a NAsg. reflecting *h1nh3-. Why?


There is one more piece of evidence which might point to the laryngeal.
MAS reconstructs Slavic *j6`meN as a. p. a. They presume that this was a
special development of nasalized jer (*-nH- > *-n:- > *-6´´N- > -6`-?). A.
p. a is reconstructed basically on the ground of evidence of Middle
Bulgarian but there is also Croatian data which may point to that
conclusion as well. Another example similar to this would be there *j6go
which is also a. p. a according to MAS (cf. Lith. ju`ngas). This is
definitely an option worth considering but I'm not entirely convinced.

> (3) The Old Irish genitive anm(a)e is thought to reflect a
> PIE genitive form *n.(:)mens (*h1nh3-men-s). Final -e can
> indeed not be explained in any other way. But a G.
> *h1nh3-mén-s is unexpected, and certainly doesn't follow
> from the amphidynamic paradigm postulated above. Such a
> form could only have arisen in a neuter "collective" of the
> type with long vowel in the suffix (cf. for instance *wódr.
> ~ coll. *udó:r). We would have had:
>
> NA *hnux-má:n-x > *h1nh3-mó:n = Goth. namo:
> G *hnux-ma:n-ás > *h1nh3-mén-s = OIr. anm(a)e
> L *hnux-ma:n-á > *h1nh3-mén(-i) (as in the AD paradigm)
>
> Now such a paradigm would not only explain OIr. anm(a)e, it
> would also answer question (2). The zero-grade NA singular
> root forms come from this "collective", even if (outside of
> Germanic) the suffix/ending of the NA sg. itself has usually
> reverted to *-mn., from the "normal" amphidynamic paradigm
> (Grk. onoma, probably OIr. ainm --if from *n.mn., but could
> also be *n.men--), or oblique *-men- has been generalized
> (maybe OIr., OCS imeN, perhaps Alb. imën ~ imër --or is that
> from *-mn.?--).
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> miguelc@...
>