Re: [tied] Re: The name of the name

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 03:03:05 -0000, "Daniel J. Milton"
<dmilt1896@...> wrote:

>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <miguelc@...>
>wrote:
>
>> I would therefore prefer to reconstruct the root as
>> *h1nóh3-, oblique *h1nh3-, with suffix *-men-.
>********
> The final line of Pokorny (with my apology for font problems):
> "vgl. finno-ugr. n„m, nam, ne°m, namma, magyar. nŒv `Name'."
> This has been one of the classic examples for proponents of a
>relationship between I.-E, and F.-U.
> With Miguel's reconstruction there seem to be four possibilities:
> 1) F.-U. borrowing from one of the I.-E. languages (or from P.IE
>itself).
> 2) Attachment of the suffix to the root in a language ancestral to
>both phyla.
> 3) Existence in both phyla of the the root and the suffix with
>similar enough functions for parallel development.
> 4) Wild coincidence.

The P(F)U word, traditionally *nimi, would in Daniel
Abondolo's reinterpretation, which I like[*], be more
properly reconstructed as *ni:mi (*nimi would correspond to
traditional *nemi). If we take the Tocharian forms at face
value (PToch. *ne:m[n]), that's a good enough match. That
only leaves the problem of how to derive Tocharian *ne:mn
from post-laryngeal PIE *no:mn.

> Is there evidence otherwise for *-men in F.-U.?

I've never noticed it, but there must be a more
authoritative answer.

[*] It leads to a PU vowel system consisting of a/ä, i/ï,
u/ü; a:/ä:, i:/ï:, u:/ü: in the first syllable (a/ä and i/ï
in the second).

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