Re: [tied] More on the crummy sanguis/asrk connection

On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 08:27:34 , "Glen Gordon"
<glengordon01@...> wrote:

>After taking a trip to the library and checking out The Sanskrit Language, I
>discovered a teensy booboo of mine. I should point out that the
>nominative-only stem of "blood" is /asrj-/ with a nom.sg. realisation of
>/asrk/. Whatever. Point is, the -k/-j- (which would be IE -*g^)

Actually, it could be *k^, *g^, *g^h, *k, *g, *gh, *kw, *gw or *ghw.

>Finally, concerning his implicit **?sxen-gW- reconstruction, why would we
>not find *-r- instead of *-n- in this derived stem? What basis for an accent
>shift? Nothing here is substantiable within the context of known IE grammar.

Known by you, perhaps. Lat. <sanguis>, <sanguinis> is obviously an
-en-derivative from the *oblique* stem of *h1ésh2rgw. That is,
*h1sh2ángw- + -en-. Cf. a similar case in inguen, inguinis "groin"
from *neghwr, *nghwen- "kidney, testicle" (Grk. thematized <nephros>,
OHG <nioro>, n-derivation from the non-oblique stem).

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