"To begin with, the reconstruction *h2p-wont-o- looks ad hoc. Why the
o-grade in the suffix in a thematised form? One would expect *-wn.t-o-
Gk. -[w]ato-. Also, I don't think you are free to posit laryngeal loss
in this position in Greek (even if one accepts the nil grade of the
root in this kind of formation); the *h2 would have been vocalised
as /a/."
You are right a Greek etymology raises some issues.
But if this word is an Old Loan in Greek and not an inherited one?
Reflecting PIE ap- 'water' (as I know PIE ap- 'water' is not present
at all in Greek -> sorry if I'm wrong)
Arguments for an Old Loan in Greek:
1. The first Greek Colonies on the Black See Cost appeared around 7
Century BC. So when the Greeks arrived there for sure the 'Black Sea'
had already a name so more probably that the Greeks used that name
and not invented a new one.
(see as a similar example the names of the Big Rivers in Today
Romania: all of them preserved from Dacian's Times:
Alutus->Olt;
Samus->Somesh,
Crisos->Crish
Maris->Muresh,
Porata->Prut,
Hieratos->Siret)
2. the Semantism of the word is against a root meaning: 'road'
3. The Sanskrit a:pavant- related to the PIE root ap- 'water' root
(present also in Baltic (upe) (maybe also in Dacian Zaldapa (and
maybe also in Rom. apa 'water'))) could be also a reason to link the
original name with Thracians or Scythians tribes.
(see for a similar example: The name of the Greek' Colony: Tomis
(today Romanian City of Constantza, on the Black Sea Coast) Is Not,
at his origin, a Greek name but a Scythian one, related to the
Scythian Queen Tomyris.
4. Could be "apa + w + anta" "the place of waters" ?
Best Regards,
Marius
--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
wrote:
> Joao S. Lopes wrote:
>
> > Focusing in this "watery" subject, an idea ocurrs:
> > Greek Pontos "sea", usually analysed as <*pentH2- "way, bridge"
(cf.
> > pons, puti, panthan-), would be more logically <*H2p-wont-o-
"watery",
> > akin to Sanskrit a:pavant-.
>
> To begin with, the reconstruction *h2p-wont-o- looks ad hoc. Why
the
> o-grade in the suffix in a thematised form? One would expect *-wn.t-
o- >
> Gk. -[w]ato-. Also, I don't think you are free to posit laryngeal
loss
> in this position in Greek (even if one accepts the nil grade of the
root
> in this kind of formation); the *h2 would have been vocalised
as /a/.
> Finally, what's logically wrong with *ponth2o- as 'road' > 'the
sea'? To
> a seafaring folk, the sea is a road. Even Germanic kennings refer
to the
> sea in such terms, cf. Old English sægl-ra:d 'sailroad', hwæl-ra:d
> 'whale-road', bæþ-weg 'bathway'.
>
> PIotr