Re: bhosos

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:

>
> On 2009-04-03 21:14, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
> > So the reconstruction is PIE bHVs-m-so- > Skt. bhám.sas?
>
> No. First of all, the Skt. stem is consonantal, i.e. it reflects an
> *-os/-es- stem without a final *-o-.
>
> Secondly, an interconsonantal *m would have been syllabic in PIE, and
> PIE *m. (not to be confused with Skt. anusva:ra) gives Skt. /a/.
>
> Thirdly, even if corrected to *bHVsmes-, the reconstruction doesn't
> work, since *-sm- does not undergo metathesis in Sanskrit. Cf. {bHas}
> 'chew', hence <bHásman-> 'chewing'.
>
> Piotr

But Piotr, the word is under bHes-2 at Pokorny (see Pok. 146)

And I cannot think see that Pokorny can made such a trivial mistake....to link a word to a root without to have one consonant of the PIE root

What is you point here, regardin Pokorny?

But anyway Skt. bhasád 'hidden, secret part of the body, genital part'
clearly comes from bHos-ó-

Marius