Re: bhosos

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3" <alexandru_mg3@...> wrote:

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@> wrote:
> >
> > On 2009-04-03 21:14, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
> >
> > > So the reconstruction is PIE bHVs-m-so- > Skt. bhám.sas?
> >
> > No. First of all, the Skt. stem is consonantal, i.e. it reflects an
> > *-os/-es- stem without a final *-o-.
> >
> > Secondly, an interconsonantal *m would have been syllabic in PIE, and
> > PIE *m. (not to be confused with Skt. anusva:ra) gives Skt. /a/.
> >
> > Thirdly, even if corrected to *bHVsmes-, the reconstruction doesn't
> > work, since *-sm- does not undergo metathesis in Sanskrit. Cf. {bHas}
> > 'chew', hence <bHásman-> 'chewing'.
> >
> > Piotr
>
> But Piotr, the word is under bHes-2 at Pokorny (see Pok. 146)
>
> And I cannot think see that Pokorny can made such a trivial mistake....to link a word to a root without to have one consonant of the PIE root
>
> What is you point here, regardin Pokorny?
>
> But anyway Skt. bhasád 'hidden, secret part of the body, genital part'
> clearly comes from bHos-ó-
>
> Marius

Also my opinion is that no vocalisation is need in bHVs-mso- (PIE m. > Skt. a)

Because the supposed word bHVs-mso- would have been had 2 syllables: / bHVs - mso / : so there is no need for a vocalisation of m (> Skt. a) because the word is easy to be pronounced...

The single point is, if a cluster *sms is reduce to ms in Sanskrit or not.

Marius

P.S. : On the other hand, I agree with you that here is no metathesis sm > ms in Skt.