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

If the Latin "kidney" word reflects the PIE "kidney" word, we need less semantic zigzagging to get from "kidney" to "groin" ("gland" > "testicle" > "groin" looks better to me). If, then, Latin <inguen> is not related to *negWH-r-, the evidence for a heteroclitic neuter is seriously weakened. As for the Balto-Slavic "bum/groin" connection, the semantics is again difficult.

On the other hand, Baltic *i:nkst-a-s 'kidney' may be relevant to our discussion. Strangely enough, it would be easier to derive from *ngW- than from *n(e)gWH- (it shows a Winterian acute in Lithuanian) ...

... OK, let's adjourn till 2001.

Piotr

----- Original Message -----
From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal

To: cybalist@egroups.com

Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 5:14 PM

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

The difficulties of connecting <ade:n> and <ökkr> (not necessarily <inguen>, of course) to <nioro> and <nephro:n> are well known. Pokorny, and de Saussure, Brugmann, Hirt and Bezzenberger (quoted by Boisacq) didn't think them unsurmountable. Be that as it may, I don't see why the etymology of <re:ne:s> should in any way be an argument for divorcing <inguen> from *nehgwr/*nghwen-. Anttila's conjecture is interesting, but metathesis is always a doubtful (circular) recourse. I have no idea what the etymology of <re:ne:s> is. Why not *re:it-n-o-, cf. Lith. <ríetas> "Oberschenkel, Lende", OCS <ritI> "bum")?