--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
> In the case of "wine", there are good reasons to believe that
> the Semitic word was borrowed from IE. Anatolian wiyana- and
*woi(h1)nom
> can easily be derived from the root *weih1- "to wind", which yields
many
> other denominations for vine- and ivy-like plants.
>
> PIE *woy(h1)nom would easily have given Semitic acc. *wayna-m ->
nom.
> *waynu-m.
It becomes even clearer by a closer look: The word "wine" is derived
from the word for the plant, "vine", Lat. vi:men, i.e. IE *wéyH1-mn,
gen. *wih1-mén-s (both stems giving Lat. vi:men-). There are two
derivatives:
1. Direct thematization: IE *wéyH1-n.n-o-s/*-aH2, seen in Hitt.
wiyani-. The segment *-nn- is from *-m.n- by "assimilation governed by
dissimilation". The process is as in Gk. stémma => stéphanos/-áne:.
2. Thematization with infixal -o- ("o-vrddhi" [Gippert]), IE *wóy-n-o-
'pertaining to vine', masc. *wóyno-s with collective *wóynaH2, whence
directly Gk. oînos and Alb. verë/venë, and by back-formation ntr.sg.
in Lat. vi:num (borrowed to many other languages).
The deletion of the laryngeal, regular with the originally consonantal
infix element that surfaces as /o/, is proved by the accent of Slavic
vênIcI, Lith vainìkas 'wreath' with lack of Hirt's retraction which
would have been caused if the protoform had been **woyH-ní-.
There will appear to be little room for such specifically IE
morphological and phonological details in a loanword.
Jens