Re: [tied] Re: Latin [homo] from PIE *dhgho_mon- = Earth dweller?

On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 14:03:58 +0200, you wrote:

>
>On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 14:42:10 +0200, Piotr Gasiorowski
><gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
>>On 8/30/04 3:26 AM, Kim Bastin wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 16:55:58 -0000, Anthony Appleyard wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Someone wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Is there any explanation of Latin _hu:ma:nus_, in particular its
>>>>>long >/u:/ ?
>>>>
>>>>There may be some influence from [humus] = "ground": "one who lives
>>>>on Earth" as distinct from gods and spirits.
>>>
>>>
>>> But _humus_ is from the same *dhgh^em- root anyway. And _humus_ has a
>>> short u.
>>
>>I simply don't know a plausible explanation of <hu:ma:nus>. Hypothetical
>>*g^Hm.hnos might perhaps have yielded *(g?)ma:nus, possibly reshaped to
>>restore the connection with <humus>, but why the length?, or if with
>><u:> from *oi, why "on earth" the diphthong?
>
>Perhaps original *(g?,h?)ma:nus was reshaped to establish an
>unetymological connection with (h)u:m- ((h)u:meo,
>(h)u:midus, (h)u:mor), by a transfer from the earth-element
>to the water-element (a human being consists of 90% water,
>or some figure like that, wasn't it?). Might also explain
>the spurious h- on the hu:m-words.

Influence from some other word is likely, I suppose, and I had thought
of u:mor, u:midus etc. The doctrine of the four humours comes to mind,
too. But such philosophical speculations are probably too late to
account for the reshaping in question, unless they continue some kind
of much earlier folk belief. On the other hand, a high water content
is no more characteristic of humans than of other living things.