Re: [tied] egnis/ognis

If Romanian 'amnar' derives from *egni-, *ogni- 'fire' (though some argue
that n.gni- is a better fit for the 'fire' word), why does the form
'amânar' have an anaptyctic vowel in the middle of the cluster -mn-?

Would a substrate word *agni- have yielded Romanian *amne or *aune? If the
general -ct- > -pt- change is a substrate effect, I would definitley expect
early *amni-, which would yield *aune-. But Dacian (or Thracian) might have
eliminated -gn- quite differently, in which case we would not see reflexes
of *amni-.

(Just to check - what is the Romanian derivative of Latin agnus 'lamb'?)

Flexional endings aren't included when compounds are formed, unless special
connective parts are counted as such. Thus in your derivation, there is no
problem with the lack of 's'. Indeed, its _presence_ would have been a
problem.

Richard.

----- Original Message -----
From: "alex" <alxmoeller@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2003 9:52 AM
Subject: [tied] egnis/ognis


> Agni. The Indic word for fire. I always wondered if from this very word
> of Indoeuropeans is something preserved in Rom.
> An it is.In Rom. the group "gn" > "mn" see Latin "cognatus" > Rom.
> "cumnat".
>
> In this order there should be a word like "amni" in Rom. and it should
> mean "fire". Is there a such word? No. but there is "amnar"= a piece of
> steel wich is used for knocking the flint for making fire. The
> composition is usual root + suff. "-ar".
>
> thus egnis/ognis > amn(V) + ar > amnar, thus the word "amnar" is the
> reflex of the IE word
>
> Accepted etymology of amnar cf. DEX:
>
> amnar, reg. amânar; from Latin "manuale".
>
> Observation: The Rom. form is like the Indik and Hittite , where the /e/
> or /o/ from egnis/ognis became /a/ ( see Indik "agni/-h", hittite
> "Agnis")
>
> Question: how is usualy explained the lost of "s" in compositum? For
> instance, if "amnar" should have been a very ancient composition, them
> the "amnisar" should be the expected form amnis +ar > amnisar.
> But there is no trace of "s", thus there is the question. Was "s" elided
> in compositions or the explanation should be the "s" was lost very long
> time ago before the suffix "-ar" was added?
>
> Alex
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>