--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> On 2007-08-24 22:14, stlatos wrote:
>
> > I'd say they're from a perfectly normal *kol-xW-mos (words in -no-
> > don't have o-grade)...
>
> Oh yes, they do. What are Gk. pórne:
Like -damnos 'taming, conquering', it's more likely a new formation
from the present stem (in n-infix) than from PIE.
> and pHo:né:
Similar to this:
*dher+ 'support'
*dhrax+ 'keep elevated?'
*dhraxnu+s > thre:^nus 'footstool'
*dhr,xnw+ > *thr,xnW+ > *thr,xWnW+ > *thrW,n+ > thrónos
(as r, > ra/ar so rW, > ro/or in standard dialects)
*dhroxW+ 'leap on'
*dhr,xW+skYe > thró:sko: 'leap, etc.'
but also
*dhr,noxW+mi > *dhr,no:mi > *tharno:mi
*dhr,nxW,+me > *dhr,nWxW,me > *thrW,nome > *thornume
mix to
thar-/thórnumai etc
So also
*bhax+ 'speak'
*bhaxnu+s bhx,nw+ 'speaking, voice'
*bhx,nw+ > *banw+ > OE bannan 'summon'
*bhaxnw+ > *phoxWnW+ > Gk pHo:né:
, if not *por(h2)-nah2,
> *bHoh2-nah2? Jens's derivation of both *-mo- and *-no- from *-mn-ó-
> (thematised *-m(e)n-) looks perfectly reasonable to me.
It doesn't matter how reasonable it is. It's fine to make a theory
as a start, but then evidence should be carefully examined to confirm
or deny it. In my examinations there are definitely reasons to reject
this *mno+ entirely.