From: andythewiros
Message: 65245
Date: 2009-10-15
>Good point (although /t/ doesn't alternate with /ð/ or /d/ in Gmc, it's only /þ/ with /ð/ or /d/ (pardon the non-IPA symbol)). If *handuz is then an original u-stem, the only similarly formed noun I can think of is OE <hearg>, OIcel. <hörgr> (I am saying this because I believe you or someone else objected earlier to the formation of o-grade feminine u-stem with Verner's shift). <hörgr> most probably goes back to a form *k(^)orkús or *k(^)arkús, and similarly *handuz most probably to a form *k(^)ontús or *k(^)omtús (or *k(^)antús or *k(^)amtús), since voiceless plosives were very seldom followed by voiced aspirates. If it was a loan, I don't see how IE *dH could appear in a loan from any other language family, which also argues for *t rather than *dH. If it was *k(^)omtús, then -tús must be a derivational ending, since I don't think the sequence *-mt- arose any other way, so then 'hand' would have to have a derivational etymology, contrary to what I said earlier. Could it be related to *k(^)om "with", i.e. "holding, having"? If it was *k(^)ontús, then there is no relation to *dek^mt, which would be very disappointing for me, but I think it not likely that it would be a loan from elsewhere because it is such a basic vocabulary item. Perhaps *k(^)ontús (or *k(^)antús) has no derivational etymology, it always and only meant 'hand', with no source verb.
>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "andythewiros" <anjarrette@> wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Torsten" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> > ><snip>
> >
> > So Gmc had words (hantag, handugs, hannarr) directly related to this 'sharp, spear, prick, goad' root but which had no semantic connection to 'hand'. To me this suggests that 'hand' comes from an entirely separate root (perhaps *k^emt- as opposed to *k^ent-).
> >
> > > And the answer to Andrew's question about the "ten" word:
> > >
> > > Russian (and other Slavic languages, AFAIK) has
> > > dvenadtsat', trinadtsat' etc lit.
> > > "two on ten", "three on ten" etc meaning
> > > "twelve", "thirteen" etc.
> > >
> > > Suppose PIE had 'dwó do komt', 'trí do komt' vel sim. (cf. the Lat. -gint-, Gk. -kont- for decades), then by false division *dé-komt- "ten". Voilà!
> > >
> > Great, but did *komt- mean "bundle of fingers" or "bundle of hands" or something else? Why not just "hand", and then go along with Pokorny in making *dek^mt- a reduced form of *dwe/dwo k^mt (or *k^omt)? Maybe Gmc 'hand' was originally a consonant stem, and then became an u-stem because of the accusative endings -um and -uns, like Gothic <fo:tus>?
> =====
> That is an intriguing idea. However if *k^omt- or *k^ont- were the stem we could not get Gmc. *hanDu- because the accusative endings would not be accented for Verner's Law to operate, just as we get Goth. <fo:tus> not *fo:dus. If *hanDu- came from a C-stem we would need something like *kondH- or *k^ondH- for the unshifted stem.
>
> DGK
>