From: Brian M. Scott
Message: 68254
Date: 2011-11-30
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57"[...]
> <dgkilday57@...> wrote:
>> Since Burrow has no problem with Proto-Indo-EuropeanMatasović also gives PCelt *kanawon- 'young animal, young
>> */a/, he extends *kan- 'small' back to PIE and derives
>> from it Middle Irish <cana>, <cano> 'wolf-cub', Welsh
>> <cenau> 'wolf-cub, dog-whelp', Latin <canis> 'dog' (on
>> the theory, earlier 'whelp'), the first element of
>> Maeonian <Kandaúle:s> 'Dog-Strangler' (epithet of Hermes,
>> Hipponax fr. 3 Masson), and Slavic <konI> 'horse' (on the
>> theory, earlier 'foal'). The semantics are not difficult,
>> with Umbrian <katel> 'dog' against Lat. <catulus> 'young
>> animal, whelp' providing an illustration, but for those
>> of us who lean toward Lubotsky in avoiding PIE */a/, the
>> phonology and morphology pose a challenge. In prevocalic
>> zero-grade, PIE *ken- should yield *kn.nV- by
>> Sievers-Edgerton, whence *kanV- in In-Ir and Italic. (The
>> latter is argued from the P-Italic negative prefix <an->,
>> apparently generalized from prevocalic position while
>> Q-Italic extracted preconsonantal *en-, Lat. <in->.) I
>> will leave the Celtic words aside, since I no longer have
>> access to recent etymological material.
> According to Schrijver, cited by Lubotsky (Reflexes of
> PIE *sk in In-Ir, Incontri Linguistici 24:25-57, fn. 21,
> 2001), the Celtic forms (including Middle Welsh <ceneu>
> 'puppy') reflect Proto-Celtic *kanawon- < PIE
> *kenh{x}won-. If this suffix *-won- functions like
> Sanskrit -van- (e.g. <yájvan-> 'worshipping' from <yaj->
> 'to worship'), the root can hardly be *kenh1- 'to pinch,
> compress' vel sim., since *kénh1won- would have an active
> sense 'pinching, pincher'. Then again, perhaps a puppy
> was considered a 'little nipper'.