Re: elementum

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:

>
> Your reasons have been
> "there's another possible explication".
> OK.
>
> I ask You:
>
> is there anything irregular in Irene Balles' etymology?
> With "irregular" I'm referring to sound-laws
>

If the -gw- is meant to correspond to -k in Skt, it wouldn't. nh > n: > na: in L. If the h1- is meant to relate it to L aser, it would be irregular for it to appear both as a- and 0-.


Only the -gw- is a DIRECT problem for ME, since I accept irregular changes and dissim., etc., but NONE of it needs to be expl. away, since no one should accept it; the et. is ridiculous since you can't just add any "needed" C to a rec. for no reason, and would only serve for L, not:

* esxr/n+ > {esxar} (nom) {esx(a?)nas} (g) H;
* ehhar > ê:ar \ éa:r G;
* esar > ysa:r TA;
* esrK/n+ > ásr,k () asnás (g) V S;

which combine to req. at least * (xY)esxrK/n+

with the -hh- in G likely from -sx- (as seen in Hittite), equivalent to the cause of s/ss in:

aser\assyr, sanguen OL;
assara:tum = ~blood wine OL;

which req. at least * x(a)sxar(gW)/n(gW)+

in which the -gu- combines with the rest to req. at least * esxrgW/n(gW)+ , and probably more, like * xYesxrgW/nGW+ , with assim. xY>x-x perhaps responsible for a- in L.


That is close to a mainstream approach, but to expl. :

asins (s) asinis (p) Latv;

ariwn Arm;
arun \ e:run

more is req., which I have since I already strayed from the mainstream to expl. NORMAL r/n and mn in IE.


The alt. s/r is already part of my req. for * xYes- > elementum; if blood < being/essence, they can be from the same root, putting 2 irregularities into 1. If 'blood' is a der. from 'be' in * -ixY-nó+ ( > L -inus / -i:nus , etc.), then Latv. is closest to IE (often so in Baltic), with Arm. * -ixY-nó+ > -iy-nó+ > -iyón+, and the rest with metathesis. As with other words I've mentioned before, inxY > imXY > üÑXY > in? / uR? / wRq , etc.

> 2012/10/15, stlatos <sean@...>:
> >
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
> > <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@> wrote:
> >>
> >> "There's no need" doesn't imply it isn't correct. Do You find that
> >> etytmology wrong or at least possible (even if less probable than Your
> >> one)?
> >>
> >
> >
> > An et. like:
> >
> >> >> >> In Irene Balles' etymology they can be analyzed as related but
> >> >> >> different
> >> >> >> compounds:
> >> >> >> *h1sh2n-h1gw-n > sanguen
> >> >> >> *h1sh2n-h1gw-i-s > sanguis
> >
> > doesn't make sense for many reasons; I've given a few. If you want more, I
> > don't know what else could convince you.



> >> >
> >> > There's no reason for that middle -h1gw- in *h1sh2n-h1gw-i-s.
> >> > Compare
> >> > iter, itineris (analogical for r/n-stem * iter, itinis), also with the
> >> > nom.
> >> > ending carried over into a long oblique. If it had later become X
> >> > itiner,
> >> > itineris , it would exactly parallel sanguen.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I do believe the IE word contained -in- at one stage, but so did all
> >> > -mn
> >> > and r/n-stems, which seldom show it.