On Sun, 23 May 2004 18:23:14 +0000, elmeras2000
<
jer@...> wrote:
>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').
Armenian body parts also usually have -n.
>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.
I don't know if my current understanding has anything to
offer in the direction you're hinting at.
What I think is that besides the well-known r/n-stems, there
are also i/n-stems and u/n-stems. These would reflect three
different suffixes **-an, **-in and **-un (perhaps
ultimately connected in some way I haven't given much
thought to yet).
NA *h2á:sth2-in "bone"
This gives *h2ósthi(r) (Ved. asthi, Arm. oskr)
G. *h2a:sth2-ín-âs,
where stressed *ín > *ín^ > *íy, before the shift to initial
accent: *h2ésthyos. But Vedic has *h2ésthnos, without
palatalization (or with de-palatalization) of /n/.
Similarly for *-un:
*g^á:n-un > *g^ónu(r) (Ved. ja:nu, Arm cunr) "knee"
*g^a:n-únW-âs > *g^anúwos > *g^énwos
*h2ak^ru(r) "tear", dóru(r) "tree", *pok^ur "cattle" and
others go similarly. Again, Vedic has preserved
unlabialized /n/ in forms like G. drún.as, I. drún.a:, L.
dá:run.i instead of *dérwos, etc.)
Animated examples are uncommon. I can only suggest:
*pá:t-in-z > *pótyo:n (= Toch. petso, elsewhere *pótis)
*pá:t-in-m > *pótim
*pa:t-ín^-âs > *pétyos (Ved. pátyur)
(/(i)n/ preserved in Ved. ins. patina:, f. *pót-n-ih2
"mistress").
And for *-un the Armenian u/n-adjectives:
*bhárg^h-un-z > *bhérg^hus "high"
*bhárg^h-un-m > *bhérg^hum
*bhárg^h-un > *bhérg^hur > barjr
*bharg^h-únW-âs > *bhr.g^hwós > barju
*bhárg^h-un-àsW > *bhérg^hunesW > barjunk`
As to the *-t in Ved. yakrt "liver", s'akrt "excrement",
káprth "penis" or Arm. leard "liver", neard "vein, nerve,
sinew", and the *-gW in asrk "blood"... well, as I write
them down (hoping yahoo won't classify this message as
"spam" because I said "penis"), I can't help notice their
bodily meaning.
I used to think that *-nt gave *-rt, but I'm not so sure
anymore (it doesn't in the verbal 3pl. imperfect/aorist
*-ent/*-ont). That would make *-t a suffix added after *-n
had become *-r.
In the "blood" word, perhaps we're dealing with a different
suffix altogether, *-(a)N (with velar nasal) [the Kartvelian
cognate z-isxl has a single sonorant /l/ corresponding to
PIE *r/*n/*rgW/*ngW], which perhaps could develop either as
simple *n or as a cluster *ngW:
*h1ásh2-an > *h1ésh2r. (Hit. eshar)
*h1ásh2-angW > *h1ésh2r.gW (Ved. asrk)
*h1ash2-án-âs > *&1sh2nós (Ved. asnas)
*h1ash2-ángW-as > *&1sh2ángWs (Lat. sangu-en-, perhaps [just
a wild speculation] Grk. haima < *saima < *saiba < pre-Greek
*saigWn. < *sangW-n-).
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...