From: Mate Kapović
Message: 47474
Date: 2007-02-15
> The materialThe logic of this completely eludes me. Since Greek o- *may* be secondary,
>
> Skt. ná:ma, G. ná:mnas
> Arm. anun, G. anuan
> Grk. ónoma, ónuma, énuma, G. onómatos
> Alb. emër ~ emën
> Lat. no:men, G. no:minis
> Umbr. nome, Abl. nomne
> OIr. ainm(m) n-, G. anm(a)e
> Goth. namo:
> OE nama (m.)
> OFr no:mia "to name"
> OPr emnes
> Slav jImeN
> ToA ńom
> ToB ńem, pl. ńemna
> Hitt. la:man
>
> Discussion
>
> As shown by Arm. (a-) and Grk. (o-, e-), the word started
> with a laryngeal. Since Greek o- may be the result of Umlaut
> (enoma > onoma), e- has more chances of being original, and
> therefore the laryngeal was */h1/-
> Next comes */n/. Hittite l- is likely to be the result ofWho says the suffix is not just *-n? If you want to go deeper, cf. Uralic
> dissimilation (*na:man > la:man). Tocharian ń- at first
> sight would appear to indicate a root vowel *e: (+h1ne:mn >
> ńem/ńom), which is impossible, but if the initial laryngeal
> is indeed *h1, Toch. ń- may simply be a special development
> of *h1n-, cf. *h3n- > m- in the word for nail *h3noghW- >
> TochA. <maku>, B <mekwa>.
>
> The root vowel varies between /o/ when stressed and zero
> when unstressed.
>
> Whether there was an additional laryngeal after the root
> vowel is a matter of some debate. Sihler, for instance,
> denies it, explaining the /o:/ in Latin <no:men>,
> <cogno:men> by analogical influence from *g^noh3- "know".
> Skt. /a:/ can be from *o (Brugmann), Armenian /u/ likewise
> (*o > u before nasal), Hittite /a:/ can show normal
> lengthening of a stressed vowel. The laryngeal is only
> required to explain the Germanic verbal forms with /o:/
> (e.g. OFr. <no:mia> above). At the same time short /o/ is
> shown directly by Greek, Germanic, Umbrian and perhaps
> Tocharian (PIE /o/, /e:/ > PToch. /e/, while /o:/ would
> rather give /a:/).
>
> However, it's hard to imagine that the suffix in this word
> would _not_ be the ubiquitous *-men, and if so, that would
> leave the root as an impossible *h1nV- (no PIE root can be
> CCV).
> Hittite /a:/ _can_ come from long /o:/, the development ofThere is one more piece of evidence which might point to the laryngeal.
> PToch /e/, /o/ and /a:/, especially in the neighbourhood of
> nasals and labials, is not quite clear, the reduction of /m/
> in Armenian <anun> is easier to understand if we depart from
> */ano:mn./ rather than */anomn./, Greek /o/ can come from
> vocalized *h3, and so could Germanic /a/. Umbrian <nome>
> (*/o:/ > /u:/ in Oscan and Umbrian), assuming it's from a
> late inscription in the Roman alphabet (the old Umbrian
> alphabet had no /o/) _could_ be due to Latin influence.
>
> I would therefore prefer to reconstruct the root as
> *h1nóh3-, oblique *h1nh3-, with suffix *-men-. The paradigm
> would have been typically amphidynamic, and is faithfully
> reflected (apart from the levelled root shape na:m-, and the
> fixed accent) in Sanskrit:
>
> NA *h1nóh3-mn. = ná:ma
> G *h1nh3-mn-ós = ná:mnas
> L *h1nh3-mén-i = ná:mani
> pl *h1nóh3-mn-h2 = ná:ma:(ni)
>
> Likewise Arm. anun < anú:(w)an < &no:mn., G. anuan <
> anu:(w)ános < *&1no:mn.(n)ós [or, as Olsen suggests,
> replacement of the suffix *-m(e)n- by *-m(e)nt-, as in
> Greek, and special development of -nt-]; Latin no:men,
> no:minis; Hitt. *no:mn. > *na:man > la:man, etc.
>
> In my view, this reflects earlier:
>
> NA *hnú:x-man
> G *hnu:x-mán-âs
> L *hnu:x-mán-a
> pl *hnú:x-man-x
>
> (or perhaps *tnú:k-man, etc.), with the regular reflex of
> the pre-PIE vowels (**u: > *ó ~ zero, **a: > *o, **a > *é ~
> zero), labialization of *k/*x to *xW = *h3 after *u(:),
> amphidynamic stress-shift in the G (and Ins/Abl) sg.
> (*hnu:x-mán-âs > *hn&x-m&n-á:s > *h1nh3-mn-ós), etc.
>
> Three additional questions remain.
>
> (1) The vocalization of laryngeals and nasals in the zero
> grade forms appears to be erratic (perhaps we can expect
> nothing else in an initial cluster *h1nh3-mn-): we have
> Greek *&1n&3mn.(t) > <onoma> with vocalization of both
> laryngeals, Germanic *n&mo:n > <namo:> with vocalization of
> the second laryngeal, and OIr. and Slavic *n.(:)men > <ainm>
> ~ <jImeN> with vocalization of the nasal.
>
> (2) Why do we find so many paradigms with the zero-grade
> forms generalized throughout? If the above analyis is
> correct, Greek, Albanian(?), Celtic, Germanic and
> Balto-Slavic have replaced a perfectly sensible NAsg.
> *h1nóh3-mn. with a NAsg. reflecting *h1nh3-. Why?
> (3) The Old Irish genitive anm(a)e is thought to reflect a
> PIE genitive form *n.(:)mens (*h1nh3-men-s). Final -e can
> indeed not be explained in any other way. But a G.
> *h1nh3-mén-s is unexpected, and certainly doesn't follow
> from the amphidynamic paradigm postulated above. Such a
> form could only have arisen in a neuter "collective" of the
> type with long vowel in the suffix (cf. for instance *wódr.
> ~ coll. *udó:r). We would have had:
>
> NA *hnux-má:n-x > *h1nh3-mó:n = Goth. namo:
> G *hnux-ma:n-ás > *h1nh3-mén-s = OIr. anm(a)e
> L *hnux-ma:n-á > *h1nh3-mén(-i) (as in the AD paradigm)
>
> Now such a paradigm would not only explain OIr. anm(a)e, it
> would also answer question (2). The zero-grade NA singular
> root forms come from this "collective", even if (outside of
> Germanic) the suffix/ending of the NA sg. itself has usually
> reverted to *-mn., from the "normal" amphidynamic paradigm
> (Grk. onoma, probably OIr. ainm --if from *n.mn., but could
> also be *n.men--), or oblique *-men- has been generalized
> (maybe OIr., OCS imeN, perhaps Alb. imën ~ imër --or is that
> from *-mn.?--).
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> miguelc@...
>