Re: [tied] The paradigm of "nose" and Romanian connections

Sorry please read anywhere Indic nás...I had problem with the
character set...

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3"
<alexandru_mg3@...> wrote:

> >Miguel:
> >> No. Vocalized */&2/ does not equal */a/. The weak
> >> stem is nas- (not *nis-) in Old Indic, therefore
> >> there cannot have been a laryngeal between the /n/
> >> and the /s/.
>
>
> Yes, you argument is correct but we don't have here a simple h2.
>
> A PIE *Hneh2s- for Indic nás- is more probable: because we can

well

> suppose a laryngeal metathesis next :
> *neh2-s- < *nh2e-s- < nás
>
> See as cognates:
> Latin na:ris too.
> Lith. noìsis , both derived from *neh2-s
>
> (Also the arguments regarding the existence of the */a/ in PIE are
> not very solid)
>
> Best Regards,
> Marius
>
>
> P.S.-1
>
> Please take note that :
> 1. Indic nás- is a perfect cognate with Romanian nas 'nose'
> too. :)
>
> For other Romanian <-> Skt. cognates see:
>
> 2. Romanian apa 'water' <-> Skt. ap- 'id.'
>
> 3. Romanian azi 'today' <-> Skt. adyaì 'id.' (attested in RV so
> around 1400 BC) both forms constructed with
>
> 4. the demonstrative particle Rom. *a <-> Skt. a < PIE

*h2e '`this

> here' (and not PIE < *h1e as Lubotsky supposed), present also in
> different Albanian/Romanian dem. compounds (see Rom. aia 'she' but
> also 'this one (fem.)' <-> Alb ajo 'id.' < PAlb a-ja: cognates

with

> Skt. ay- attested in RV ayaìm 'this here, he' )
>
> Best Regards,
> Marius Alexandru
>
>
> P.S.-2
>
> For a supposed Latin derivation of Rom 'azi' please remember that
> Lat. /o/ never give /a/ in Romanian