From: elmeras2000
Message: 32882
Date: 2004-05-23
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
[JER:]
> > The Luvian form
> >zarzsa 'his heart' reflects a short vowel.
>
> Melchert gives it as za:rt=za (long vowel, but ultimately
> from generalized weak stem *k^r.d-, so not really relevant).
I meant it does not have an i-vowel in Luvian which it should if it
reflected */e:/. And if it is from *k^r.d- instead (which cannot be
known), then that stem form must be accepted for Anatolian.
> >> And
> >> the correspondence Skt. -i ~ Hitt. -iy- (kardiyas) also
> >> doesn't exactly point to a laryngeal.
> >
> >No, I never said it did. I would say that Sanskrit hr.´d-aya-m
and
> >Gk. kardía:, kradíe: look like the disjecta membra of an older
> >neuter-and-collective paradigm with the suffix *-eyo- seen in
> >adjectives of material and ethnics, so *k^r.d-éyo-m, *k^r.´d-ia-
H2
> >would mean 'of heart, made of heart flesh', perhaps 'made of
heart
> >blood'. The semantics could also reflect an older and wider use
of
> >the suffix.
> >
> >> It's simply that besides the root noun *k^í:rd, *ki:rd-ás (>
> >> *k^é:r, *k^r.dés) there was also a variant with a suffix
> >> -i(n). *kí:rd-in, *ki:rd-ín-âs regularly gives *ké:rdi,
> >> *kr.dyós, which is what we see in Skt. NA há:rdi (with
> >> aberrant initial) and Hitt. oblique kardiya- (as well as in
> >> Greek kardía:, Arm. sirt/srti-, BS *s'r.di-).
> >
> >I continue to see no evidence for a vowel /i:/ preceding a
putative
> >PIE alternation between /é:/ and zero. Nor do I see the need for
a
> >preform of the -i- containing an /-n-/ at any stage.
>
> As you say above, há:rdi is suggestive of áks.i / aks.n-,
> ásthi /asthn-, sákthi / sakhn-, etc., where an *n is surely
> needed.
So you say an *n is needed here *as the basis of the /i/*? The /i/
dos not appear in Avest. as-ca, except as a variant in the plural
asti, asto:. That may further support the identification of it with
the collective marker. A collective is obvious for 'bone', and in
the case of Gk. kardía: it is apparently accepted by the language
itself. For 'eye' and 'thigh' one will rather think of the dual.
The -n- is an interesting addition, obviously identical with the n-
stem of Germanic 'eye' and 'heart' (while 'ear' could have ot
from 'eye'). The new probings into the semantics of the n/nt-
extensions have revealed they can be used to specify individual
items. A season without -n(t)- would be any winter, any spring or
whatever, while with the extension it would mean the specific season
that is being talked about. By the same token bodyparts with -n-
could have meant the parts of a specific person. The main conclusion
that -n(t)- was in origin a definite article lies right round the
corner now.
Even on this background, any possibility to identify the Vedic
enlargements -i and -n- with each other ought to be welcome. Can it
be explained that the added -n- of say áh-n-as or as-n-ás is not
accompanied by -i in the nom.-acc. áhas, ásr.g ? Can any relation to
the mysterious -r.t or -r.k be made out? And what would be the
regular correspondence of the Vedic -i (alternating with -n-) in the
other branches? This looks like quite some task.
Jens