Re: *wogwh-ni ‘ploughshare’

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <stlatos@...> wrote:

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Abdullah Konushevci"
> <akonushevci@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Sean Whalen <stlatos@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > --- Abdullah Konushevci <akonushevci@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > *wogwh-ni `ploughshare'. 1. Alb umb `small plowshare
> > > > on a wooden
> > > > plow', Tosk and Standard Albanian form, umi as Gheg
> > > > variant, from
> > > > nasalized zero-grade form *ungwh-u, cf. for same
> > >
> > > > Lat vo:mis:
> > > > `ploughshare': OHG waganso `ploughshare', OPrus
> > > > wagnis `coulter', Grk
> > > > ophnis. (Pokorny wowing-s 1179.)
> > >
> > > If these words are related, I think *ungwhus would
> > > be
> > > unnecessary.
> >
> > First, why do you think or why do you doubt that they can't be
> > related.
>
> They may be related, they may not. I don't see enough evidence to
> be sure either way. If umb has no PIE etymology there's nothing

more

> I can say about it. If umb has a PIE etymology then it could either
> be from *wogWhnis or from some other related word without outside
> connections but posited only on Alb evidence(such as *ungWhus). I'd
> prefer to relate it directly to PIE *wogWhnis but this would require
> several new rules without certain evidence. Reconstructing a proto-
> form based only on Alb evidence(such as *ungWhus) which has a long
> unknown history that could include many not-yet-discovered changes
> seems to defeat the point of comparative linguistics: that several
> words in several languages may go back to the same word in the same
> language further back in time. Though PIE obviously had many words
> from the same root there are several additional points specifically
> against *ungWhus: why a u-stem comparable in form to an adjective
> applied to people for an inanimate noun?; why initial un- not wn-?;
> why would ngWh>mbh (or sim) in Albanian?

************
First of all, there is nothing unutural then zero-grade forms to be
nasalized, so *wegWh-ni in zero-grade form would look *ungWh-; -ngWh-
as could be testified from lembus < *lengWho-s have yielded Illyrian -
mb- as have Lating -ngu- in lingua > Rom limba etc. Such change,
therefore, is arealy justified. Possibility the /o/ to be
bilabialized to /u/ preceded by bilabial are evident.
So, phonetically speaking, Alb umi< umbi 'small plowshare on a wooden
plow' could be as well an o-stem noun, as could be an u-stem too.
Your point that derivatives of same root must be derived from same
form and same suffix, to my view, is not correct and this could be
proved with many examples.

Lets take just one example: Alb gjumë 'sleep' and Greek hypnos are
derived from zero-grade form *sup-no- of the root *swep- 'to sleep',
till sopor 'a deep sleep' is derived from *swep-os- with regular
rhotacism and somnum from *swep-no with assimilation -pn- > -mn-.
I think also that basic form *swep-o have yielded Alb djep 'cradle',
for *sw- have yielded Alb d-, if followed by stressed vowel,
otherwise v-.

Konushevci