Re: [tied] egnis/ognis

Richard Wordingham wrote:

> 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-.

If we assume the sort /i/ became /e/ as in the Latin words, then we will
have an *amni> *amne which became *amnã

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

The rom. word for "lamb" is " miel". And the linguists tried to make the
followings transformatiosn:
agnellus > amnelus > amnielus> mnielus > mielus > miel.

this should be posible due assimilation of "n" when followed by "i" ,
which /i/ appears due diphtongation of /e/.
Othere words where "gn" > "mn"
pugnus > pumn, lignus > lemn

> 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.

And the word is a noun wich became an noun suffixed with "-ar" as in
"ciorbã"(soup) and "ciorbar"(ladle), the last one being the instrument
you take the soup from the pot, thus *amnã+ar > amnar

Alex