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

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 21:01:18 +0100, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
<miguelc@...> wrote:

>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.

Actually, if *h1n- > ñ- (and *h3n- > m-), */o:/ > */e:/
after /ñ/ is simply the kind of Umlaut that is to be
expected in Tocharian.

To muddy the waters again: based on PU *ni:mi "name" and
*wi:ti "water" (and nothing else!), we _could_ set up a
soundlaw *u: > *i: (or viceversa) [as well as something like
*-an > *-i], to link up (pre-)PIE *h1nú:h3-man (*h1nóh3mn.)
"name" and *ú:d-an (*wódr.) "water" with the PU forms.

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