Re: [tied] PIE *h3 and PPIE **n

On Fri, 15 Dec 2000 09:14:02 , "Glen Gordon"
<glengordon01@...> wrote:

>Miguel:
>>And what is *-nu- supposed to be? We have suH-n-u-s and suH-y-u-s. >I
>>propose to derive them both from *suH-n^-u-s.
>
>?? You're not merely error-prone. I would have some sympathy if you were. It
>is your denial of any of your errors that pushes you to the next level of
>outright stupidity. This childish behaviour lowers the quality of the List.
>
>Surely you've heard of the widely attested verbal infix *-n-

Where's the infix?

>(which has no variant **-y-)

Surely you've heard of the widely attested verbal suffix -y-.

[unnecessary list of u-stems, since no-one, except Glen, was denying
the presence of -u-]

>>You're twisting my words. The connection between the three roots is
>>always remarked upon, the explanations vary:
>>
>>Pokorny: "neben idg. em- stehen die Reimwurzeln jem- und nem-, wohl
>>urspruenglich verschieden und nur sekundaer gelegentlich angeglichen"
>
>Pokorny's reconstructions are laryngeal-less (in other words, ignorant of
>the long-ago discovered Hittite), hinting at the antiquity of his viewpoints
>in general.

Where's the laryngeal?

>>Kluge/Mitzka: "[sub NEHMEN] Daneben liegen Formen ohne anlautendes
>><n>, deren lautl. Verhaeltnis zu den <n->Formen noch ungeklaert ist."
>
>Mitzka who?

Walther.

>>What on earth do you mean by "minimal pairs"?
>
>It's a commonly known linguistic term and is the necessary substantiation
>for your **n^ => *y/*n equation.

No, Glen. A minimal pair is "pair" ~ "hair" (demonstrating that in
English /p/ and /h/ are distinct phonemes). A minimal pair is what I
might need to prove that in (pre-)PIE *n and *n^ were distinct
phonemes (gee, there's one right there: *n^em- "to take" ~ *nem- "to
bow"). The term you're looking for is "conditioning factors". Except
that I don't actually *need* them (though they would be nice). Look up
"Wellentheorie", for instance.

>>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).
>
>So I went to the local library a couple blocks away and looked up "inguen"
>in an etymological dictionary

Which one?

>expecting to find a large, gaping error in
>your reasoning. Not even five minutes had passed before I found it.
>
>While the word for "kidney, testicle" is indeed *neghWr with the thematic
>variant *neghWros (Gr. nephros), the Latin word /inguen/ has nothing to do
>with *neghWr! A correct Latin cognate would be /nefro:ne:s/ with /-f-/.

That's Praenestian, not Latin.

>The REAL reconstruction behind /inguen/ is *ngWe:n with *-gW-, not *-ghW-!
>The word is related to Greek /ade:n/ "gland" and ON /o"kvinn/ "a swelling".
>Although a meaning was not given in the dictionary for *ngWe:n, the
>underlying meaning would appear to involve the phallus. At any rate:
>different words with different velars and different accentuation completely.

The usual explanation for the Greek word is that the aspiration was
lost after the nasal. As per Kluge's Law, I think that's true for
Germanic in general. In Latin, there's nothing to explain: *nghw =
*ngw > ngu.


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