Re: [tied] The name of the name

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 11:02:48 +0100 (CET), Mate Kapović
<mkapovic@...> wrote:

>On Čet, veljača 15, 2007 12:55 am, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal reče:
>> 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/-
>
>The logic of this completely eludes me. Since Greek o- *may* be secondary,
>it *is* secondary? Come on... And you completely ignore Armenian.

The logic seems perfectly clear to me. Grk. o- can be
explained as from *h3- or as from *h1- with e- assimilated
to the following /o/. Grk e- can only be explained as coming
from *h1-. Therefore, *h1- has more chances of being
original.

>> 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).
>
>Who says the suffix is not just *-n?

It could be *-en, it's just much more likely that it's
*-men.

>There is one more piece of evidence which might point to the laryngeal.
>MAS reconstructs Slavic *j6`meN as a. p. a. They presume that this was a
>special development of nasalized jer (*-nH- > *-n:- > *-6´´N- > -6`-?).

That's simply Hirt's law: *n.H (or at least *n.h2 and *n.h3)
has a non-vocalized laryngeal, and the stress is withdrawn
from a following syllable. The question is whether the
stress *was* on the second syllable here (I reconstruct both
*h1nóh3mn. and *h1nh3mó:n, neither of which corresponds
exactly to PBS *h1nh3men). An additional issue is that if
the NApl. was *h1nh3menáh2, Hirt's law would *not* have
worked across two syllables. A paradigm *ínmen ~ *inmená:
is mobile.

>A.p. a is reconstructed basically on the ground of evidence of Middle
>Bulgarian but there is also Croatian data which may point to that
>conclusion as well. Another example similar to this would be there *j6go
>which is also a. p. a according to MAS (cf. Lith. ju`ngas). This is
>definitely an option worth considering but I'm not entirely convinced.

jIgo is another problem. The word was an end-stressed o-stem
in PIE (yugám, zugón), so we would expect Slavic *jigó, with
end-stress and Winter lengthening, or perhaps *ji"go with
retraction of the stress to a pretonic acute. But the
Slavic word became a mobile s-stem (*ígas ~ *igesá:) That
would explain the short vowel (Cz. jho). It doesn't explain
the a.p. a.

The Lith. form is as expected, with Winter acute and a.p. II

> I (*ju(n)góm > *jun?gá > *jún?ga-s).

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
miguelc@...