Re: [tied] Catching up again...

On Sun, 12 Nov 2000 13:29:59 +0100, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
<mcv@...> wrote:

[Just to add a couple of afterthoughts:]

>I don't think the Egyptian word can be connected to either *woino- or
>*wainu-. Egyptian vocalisation is always problematic, but I would
>suspect a form *wainas^- to have been spelt <w-j-n-s^>, and if the
>Basque form is anything to go by, it suggests a vocalisation
>/wanas^-/. And one would also have to explain the /s^/: hardly from
>PIE *-s (where we have *woinom rather than *woinos), hardly from
>anything Semitic, and if the word was not borrowed but native Egyptian
>(or was borrowed into Old Egyptian), /s^/ must in any case come from
>/x/ before a front vowel (*wanaxi- ?, cf. PKartv. *wenaq- "grape").

Kartv. uvular stops corresponding to Semitic/Egyptian velar fricatives
(i.e. PK *G *q *q. ~ P(N)AA *G *x *h.). The PKartv. word actually
means "vine", sorry. A connection with Glen's Etruscan <vinac>?

>2) In Indo-European, the word is either thematic masculine (Grk.
>oinos) or thematic neuter (Lat. vi:num). In either case, one expects
>the word to be found most often as object (of the verb *poh3-/*piph3-
>"to drink", for instance) and thus as *woinom. The Semitic word is
>*wainu (West Semitic *yaynu) in the construct state, but the free form
>was probably *wainum (if Akkadian mimation in the singular is
>original).

Or I should say, in the more common accusative, *wainam. It's still
undecidable: *wainam -> *woinom just as easily as *woinom -> *wainam.

An analysis in IE terms of "wine" should not leave Latin <vi:tis> etc.
(from *wei-t-) "vine" unmentioned.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...