From: Torsten
Message: 65249
Date: 2009-10-15
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@> wrote:That *xarug- thing (also here
> >
> > --- 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.
> >
>
> 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.