On 2006-07-14 03:34, Andrew Jarrette wrote:
> So would <khaos> come from *g^hHjos from the "yawn" verb, or are you
> saying that it is a derivative of <khasko:> which is unrelated to
> the "yawn" verb? If this is from *gHa(:)n-, what happened to the nasal?
I think it is related to <kHasko:>, but I'm by no means sure what the
underlying root really looked like. <kHaos> is an es-neuter, which means
that it should contain the fundamental grade of the root plus the
*-e/os- suffix. It has now occurred to me that *gHas- (or *g^Has-) could
do the trick at least as regards <kHasko:> (*gHas-ske/o-), <khaos>
(*gHas-es-), <kHasma> (*gHas-mn.[t-]). The problem is what to do with
forms like pres. <kHaino:> (a late word, to be sure), aor. <ekHanon>
(Hom.), perf. <kekHe:na> (Hom.), etc., which suggest a root with a final
nasal. Perhaps Greek had more than one alliterating roots with similar
meanings, and even with some degree of cross-contamination within
suppletive paradigms. This is quite thinkable, given the imitative value
of <kHa...>. A further possibility is that {kHas-} is a secondary Greek
root derived from *gHn.- extended with *-s-. I've really got no idea
what to prefer. Anyway, the <kHaos> complex seems not to be directly
related to *g^Heih1- (or whatever the details).
> What does the *h1erh2- root mean? Is it "separate, adjoin" as
> Abdullah Konushevci reported, or is it closer to "desire, love"? I
> don't see how the meaning "desire, love" could have arisen from
> "separate, adjoin" or have related words meaning "border" or "dissolve".
I hold with those who favour 'desire'.
Piotr