I can't see in what way these two are
supposed to be parallel. The alternation *-(e)n-/*-r in *negWHr- is restricted
to the word-final element. But in your hypothetical **h1esh2-r-gW- we have a
stem-internal alternation, and **h1sh2-an-gW-en- contains an extra *-en (in
addition to the one that alternates with *-r-) not found in inguen- (which is an
uncontroversial zero-derivative of *ngWH-en-).
As for the derivation being obvious, that's
certainly an exaggerated claim. Truth to tell, what sanguis and *h1esh2r-
tangibly share is just the consonant *s. The rest is speculation. No
evidence exists to remedy the circularity of reconstructing the -k in asrk
as *-gW. Even in Sanskrit, the Gen. is asnas rather than *sangas(?) or whatever
else one might expect given the Latin "oblique stem". Hittite preserves
this "blood" word better than any other IE language, but shows no trace of
*-gW:
eshar, Gen. eshanas; eshan-ant-
'blood'
eshar-nu(-mai)- 'make bloody'
esharwant- 'red'
eshanuwant- 'bloodstained'
etc.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2000 6:56 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] More on the crummy sanguis/asrk
connection
... 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).