Sorry same problem with teh Character Set: please read Indic adyá
and Lithuanian nósis..
I reshaped my message.
--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3"
<alexandru_mg3@...> wrote:
> 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. nósis , 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. adyá '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 ayám '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