Re: [cybalist] Hamp and his dog, an IE shepherd

----- Original Message -----

From: Glen Gordon

To: cybalist@egroups.com

Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2000 8:33 AM

Subject: [cybalist] Hamp and his dog

Here's more food for thought, Glen:

 

*pku- as the unstressed (zero-grade) composition form of *peku- is DIRECTLY attested in Iranian, e.g. in Avestan fšu-mant- 'having large herds', or Sogdian xwšp'n [= xšupa:n], Modern Persian šuba:n (< *fšu-pa:na-) 'shepherd'. The pattern is the same as in *doru (gen. *drous) 'wood, tree' (an independent word): *dru- (in composition and derivation).

 

Compounds with *peku- (e.g. Sanskrit paśu-pa: 'shepherd') seem to contain an analogically restored *e. In the 'dog' word the early loss of *p apparently severed the synchronic semantic connection between *peku and *(p)kuo:n, splitting the etymon in two and preventing the restoration of full-grade vocalism.

 

The word-initial simplification of *pk to *k is evident in Greek kteis/ktenos 'comb' (< *pkten-; cf. Latin pecto, pecten).

 

I'm not absolutely convinced that Hamp is right, but his etymology is attractive and has already inspired similar analyses, e.g. a new interpretation of Greek kuklo:ps 'Cyclops' as < *pku-klo:p- 'cattle-thief'.

 

Piotr

 

---

 

Piotr:
>   It's really *k'uon- (n. sg. *k'(u)wo:n). I suppose you've heard of >Eric
>Hamp's analysis of 'dog' as *pk'u-o:n 'livestock herder'.

Yuck... Actually, it would mean literally "livestock-er", no? Wouldn't we
more likely expect *pek'u-o:n, if this were so? First, how do we validly get
from *pek'u-o:n to *pk'u-o:n despite natural resistance of obscured
zero-grade forms elsewhere, and then how do we validly get from *pk'u-o:n to
*k'uo:n without making up an instance of *pk- > *k- for convenience sake
(Afterall, at least we find *dhgh- in *dhghom- substantiated by forms in
Hittite, Sanskrit and Greek). I haven't really heard a convincing case for
**pk- yet where the consonant cluster is _actually attested_. Am I wrong?

Secondly, the matter of whether *o is particularly ancient is up for debate.
The *e/*o ablaut can only be so old and often linked to accentuation (cf.
genitive *-es/*-os, coincidentally with varying accent). There is some
motivation for *o to have been labialized by *w in *k'won- from earlier
*k'wen-. Food for thought.

- gLeN