Re: Portuguese farpa "barb" < *bHardHa?

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Trond Engen <trond@...> wrote:

>
> dgkilday57:
>
> >> propinquus (adj) = near L;
> >>
> >> [...]
> >
> >> Since propinquus is obv. contaminated by analogy w an older
> >> *propi, an older *pronkWos < *prokWnos < *prokWinos is likely (like
> >> *perkWinos > *perkWnos > *kWerkWnos > quernus ( < quercus < * ).
> >> Depending on timing, a regular change of p-kW in either direction is
> >> possible if pC- and kWC-blocking are part of the rule (as I already
> >> wrote long ago), but that's based on a small sample of each possible
> >> occurrence, and seems too complicated and much more unlikely
> >> considering other opt. changes for kW that I've seen in L. (and in
> >> many other IE). The existence of a tendency for these opt. changes,
> >> in some, but not others, very common to the point of possibly being
> >> regular within a lang., while obv. opt. in another, makes much more
> >> impossible to say.
> >
> > Again, your prose is as clear as mud. The ending of <propinquus> and
> > <longinquus> corresponds to that of Skt. directional adjectives like
> > <praty-a'c-> 'turned backwards, facing west' and <ny-a'c-> 'directed
> > downwards' (full grade <-an~c->). The root appears to be the same as
> > in Skt. <a'n~cati> 'turns, goes' which is commonly (but erroneously
> > in my view) referred to PIE *h2ank- 'bend'. I believe the correct
> > root is *h1enkW-, which is also found in Lat. <inquit>. I have never
> > believed that <inquit> is from the same verb as <insece> 'tell!'
> > (Liv. Andr.) with ad-hoc loss of *-s-. Instead, I think <inquit>,
> > like <a'n~cati>, originally meant 'turns, goes', and was used to
> > introduce discourse in vivid speech just as English <goes> is:
> > "Well, as soon as I turn around, he goes, 'Give me your money!'"
>
> Is there no connection to the Germanic suffix -inguz?
>

That's usually given as *-ingaz , though it also appears a few other ways, like *-ungaz :


kuning OHG; konungr ON; king E;

Mímungr = (a sword) ON; Tirfingr = (a magic sword)

fjörsungr = greater weaver [fish] OIc ON; *pIstroNgU = trout Slav;
vs
hæ:ring OE; herring E;


which, considering all the supposed cases of "laryngeal hardening" in Gmc., should be eq. to *-ixYnos ( > -i:nus in L, etc.).

> (What do you call the function of that suffix? Delocative? But it's more
> than that. I wanted to say 'sociative' but that's not it.)
>

Since propinquus and longinquus are obviously a contaminated pair (like levis and *grevis < gravis), the only way to consider -inquus an affix is to say something crazy like proximus < *prok(W)+ but propius can't be < *prokW- (as obviously suppletive as near and next, right?). Despite what some say, I'm not crazy.