--- In cybalist@..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...> wrote:
> The actual Slavic reflex of PIE "one" is *inU, recycled
semantically as "another, diferent". The original meaning survives in
a couple of old compounds -- *ino-rogU 'unicorn' and *ino-xodU
'amble, lateral gait'.
Or triplet. Add *inokU 'monk', a carbon-copy of Greek monakho's.
> I don't know where the initial *v- in the East Baltic reflex comes
from. Such prothesis is unusual in that branch; perhaps Sergei knows
more about it.
AFAIK, there are two hypotheses (not very impressive, I must admit):
1. Still a prothesis. I'm not sure about Latvian, but v- before /u/,
/uo/ < *o: (/ a: in Samog.) and /o/ < a: (but not /a/!) is often or
even normal in many Lithuanian dialects, both Samogitian and
auks^tai~c^iu, (anybody knows the English term?), cf. auks^t. vu`pe.
'river', vu'oga 'berry', vo'ras 'air', voz^ka` 'she-goat' (and vice
versa, historical v- is sometimes dropped - probably as a result of
re-analyzing it as a prothesis - like in o'ras 'spider', o'kietis 'a
German'), Samog. vu'ors 'air.'. Examples with /o/ are ambiguous -
it's not clear, if the prothesis was added before *a: > o or after
(most likely, since it seemes the part of auks^tai~c^ai where a:
survived doesn't have v- before /a:/).
2. Some proclitical particle (of unknown origin, probably <
(Fraenkel, if I recall) *ve- < ?), typologically cf. Slavic *ed-inU.
> Apart from this irregularity, OPrus. ains, Slavic *inU and East
Baltic *[w]ienas can be reconstructed as Proto-BSl *ainas, with an
acute accent on the diphthong evidenced throughout Balto-Slavic. The
accent suggests that there is something amiss about the traditional
IE reconstruction *oi-no-. My personal preference is for *oi-h1n-o-,
with a variant of the suffix *-h1on
Canonical East-Baltic form would be *[w]e.:nas (e with a dot above, a
narrow long e). As for *oi- > *ei- (>*e.:), it's normal for East
Baltic, but not for Slavic (where *(j)e^- would be expected). Any
ideas (eg, < *eih1n- or *i(h1)n-, for the latter cf. Lith. dial.
i`nas 'real,true')?
> A by-form of *inorogU (*inUrogU > *inrog > *indrok?) is probably
the prototype of Indrik.
This is a plausible derivation, and you can strip off the * from
Indrok(U) - it's attested.
Sergei