Hm, as I see, the suffix is the same and in the same grade: flamen from *...-me:n, like pater from *ph2te:r, but can also be from -m.n. If the root is in the zero-grade, then the full grade of the suffix is more probable, like poimé:n, so all three (flamen, brahmán and poimé:n) are nomina agentis.
Now the root. Without any initial guess, f- in latin can be from *bh (fero:) *dh (fores) *gWh (formus). la: from 'lH'. From latin that's all, I guess. Pokorny gives *bhl&gh-s-men to sufflamen, but does it have to do to the priest? like... flamini non fas bigam agere ; ). And why this *-s- exactly?
The vedic indeed points to *bhleg'h. The problem here, then, seems to be the a: from flamen. If it was just bh.lg'hmén, it should be like **fu:lmen or something. But if there is such an animal like an original *a ; ), *bhlag'hmen *flahmen (like, say, hanser), fla:men, ecce. I think that is the original proposition.
Edgard.
On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 3:31 PM, Arnaud Fournet
<fournet.arnaud@...> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: Edgard Bikelis
To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
Please, what is the problem with flamen / brahmán?
Edgard.
========
Apart from semantic problems,
I guess
Flamen is *bhl&gh-s-mn
Brahman is bhlegh-mn
The word formation is not the same.