wanax: vN-h2eg'-t- ?

From: Glen Gordon
Message: 7567
Date: 2001-06-11

>for vaNij- Mayrhofer does give "Gueter gewinnend" from
>*van-ij- < *ven-Hg'- even though he has no explanation
>for cerebral N (vaNij < vanij)

Why should there be? Those /N/s develop all the time from IE *n.
Look at /paNca/ or /jNa-/. It's a classic case of palatalisation.

>Now, the fact is that vaNij is a real word in sanskrit
>and does mean "merchant" whether we like its formation or

I like its formation very much, but you do not appreciate the fact that this
word is more than likely to be a recent word with the -j
suffix which you yourself acknowledge. I don't understand why /N/
cannot have arisen from the following -i-.

>(because way too many words have been labelled Pelasgian and what
>not in the past.

Perhaps this is true. However, as of yet, there are no secure
reconstructions for a "wanax" in Indo-European and it doesn't seem
very promising. Therefore, we can't jump to the conclusion that
Myc./wanax/ is an IE word. The meager evidence for this, combined
with the bizarre IE root that would result, so far cuts this
theory short and a non-IE origin remains much more likely.

- gLeN

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com