Re: elementum

1) You wrote: "If the -gw- is meant to correspond to -k in Skt, it wouldn't."
I answered that it ISN'T meant. That's all. You have uttered a
hypothesis about Irene Balles' etymology ("If the -gw- is meant to
correspond to -k in Skt") and that hypothesis of Yours was wrong. This
is the end of this little story.
It's You who mean that */gw/ corresponds to -k in Vedic and
Sanskrit, so it's Your problem, but not a problem of Balles'. We are
discussing about nothing in this case, so please let's close at least
this point.

2) Of course the origin of the nasal infix is an interesting problem
and it probably has something to do with metathesis, but this rule was
no more operating already in PIE times, so it's pre-PIE.
When we are reconstructing a PIE prototype, such rules are still
to be kept apart, just like Lat. pater, ma:ter, and fra:ter, although
obviously cognate with father, mother, and brother, are to be kept
apart when we are reconstructing Proto-Germanic.
Therefore *h1egw- is a sufficient reconstruction for PIE. It
evidenlty had an antecedent in earlier times and it's extremely
interesting to reconstruct it, but this cannot compel us to resign to
regular recosntructions for PIE and to operate with optional
sound-laws. Every sound-laws, Yours included, are and must be regular,
otherwise they have no explicational power (i.e., they are useless);
if they do appear as optional, they can refer to an earlier stage

5) Your explanation is good (and, by the way, You can find it
already in I. Balles' paper)! What do You want beside that? Do You
want that, since You have given a plausible explanation, I have to
look to another one? Please let's close this point as well, there's
absolutely no contrast!

2012/10/16, stlatos <sean@...>:

>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
> <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:
>>
>> 1) asrk: of course r/n alternation; in any case */gw/ *in Balles'
>> etymology* DOESN'T have anything to do with Old Indic -k. Stop.
>
>
> Look, just because one person doesn't think they're connected, don't keep
> me from saying it. This guy said about the same thing I did; bother him if
> you want to keep talking about it:
>
> tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/16501
>
>>>
> Skt. asr.k, asnás, Arm. ariwn (*esr.-io:n ?), , Grk. éar, OLat. asser,
> Lat.sanguis G. sanguinis, Latv. asins, TochA ysa:r, Hitt. e:shar, eshanasAD
> **hásx-ung, **hasx-úng-âs > *h1és&2r.(gW), *&1s&2n(gW)ósLatin sanguis
> (*[&1]sh2ángW-en-) is an n-stem derivative of the simplex.
>
>
>> 2) a connection between /ogn/ and /ong/ is irregular from an IE
>> perspective; maybe they are cognate before PIE, but a PIE metathesis
>> rule has counterexamples in every preserved sequence without
>> metathesis. If You discover pre-PIE sound laws it's extremely good,
>> but incompatibility with known sound-laws requires to operate with
>> different chronologies, so everyone is happy
>
>
> The verbs ending in -n- or -ny- (ie. manthano: , aldaíno: = make grow /
> nourish G;) almost always show only or also (depending on in which IE lang.)
> root-internal -n- in the present (ie. vinc- vs. victor), indicating
> metathesis in at least some cases. Individual IE lang. w metathesis are
> very common (ie. unda < *wedr/n- L;), incl. many in Arm. for n , r , y ,
> etc.
>
>
>> 3) "it seems unlikely from other ev." is no objection
>> 4) IE alternations: if You mean morphological alternations, they have
>> to be used until they can't explain anything more and then one has to
>> reconstruct different forms for one word. If You, on the contrary,
>> mean phonological alternations, You are operating in a different frame
>> and so our discussion is useless, because we are dealing with
>> different scientific objects
>> 5) asser: I've written that YOU have given an explanation, so why do
>> You critique that very explanation?
>
>
> I gave one possibility, that could be right, but could have other expl.
> that I didn't want to get into. I'm objecting to your e/0/o w/o expl.,
> among others.
>
>
>> Morphological and phonological alternations are competing explanations
>> (Your sentence that morphological alternation explains less and is
>> more complicated is a far-reaching utterance that should be based on
>> much more evidence, otherwise it's just a respectable personal
>> opinion); if phonological explanations imply optional sound-laws
>> (therefore not PIE, but at best pre-PIE) they are by no way superior
>> to accepted morphological ones
>> 6) -i:s: to have a possible different explanation can never mean that
>> any other regular explanation is false;
>> chronology of attestation cannot imply necessarily that newer forms
>> are innovations
>> 7) word order: not 'red blood', but 'red as blood', therefore regular
>> like any other substantive + adjective compound
>
>
>
>