Re: elementum

*/gw/ isn't required to match Skt. -k (because this alternates
with -n-, while Lat. -gu- doesn't); it's meant as part of the root
*h1egw-, found in:
Lat. ignis - Skt. agnih - Slav. ogn' 'fire' < *h1e/ogw-ni-
Toch. AB yok 'colour, hair' < *h1e:gw-ni-
Gk. erysibe: 'erysipela' (med.) < *h1rudh-si-h1gw-ah2
Gk. akri:b'e:s 'precise, exact', which implies a neuter *akri:bos <
*h2ak'ri-h1gw-os-.

*/nh/ doesn't vocalize, because */h2/ does, so */n/ is
consonantal, while */h1/ is onset of following /*h1gwV-/.

Asins and ariwn reflect *h1osh2-(i-)ni-s and *h1esh2-r-i1/3o:n-
respectively and in any case are scarcely relevant for the details of
the etymology of sanguis.

I completely fail to understand Your objection w/ref. to asser,
since an explanation of this latter from that very root is given by
Yourself a few line below.

Once the alternance between *-en- and *-i: stem is accepted, an
alternation between *en-, *in-, and *-i- stems (still apparent in
Latin itself) must be accepted as well.

In sum, none of the alleged irregularities is such, therefore
*h1sh2n-*h1gw-n/i(n)- is a perfect reconstruction for sanguen /
sangui(:)s and not a "ridiculous" one, as You politely write.
Is there anything else?



2012/10/15, stlatos <sean@...>:

>
>
> --- 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.
>
>
>
>
>