Re: elementum

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

>
> */gw/ isn't required to match Skt. -k (because this alternates
> with -n-,

It's r/n alt., as normal. The -k appears to come from nothing, or be a nom. add-on only (in the mainstream); it is the result of X > q/G/h/?>0 , etc., as I've covered before.

> 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-.
>

I don't accept that rec., or all cognates above. It ignores, among others, * ogni- > * ongy- > unj^ = soot/rust Ar; with a K(Y) not KW since gW > gw > g > k (as gWixW-wó+ > keankH Ar; not * c^yankH > etc.)
. They must also be related since:

ognI OCS;

is related to:

oNglI OCS; : anglìs Lith; aingeal = light/fire Ir; áNgaara-s = charcoal S; aNAAr = fire Koh;

and the two 'fire' words must also be related to each other since, just as above, apparent K(-Y) corr. to KY or Ky in Armenian:

* anxcuL- > acuL = coal Ar; anjoG EAr;

which suggest a complex cluster (w at least 2 K, gW-xY or sim.), with several opt. outcomes. These words all show fire > fire product (charcoal, etc.) and/or red/light for any semantic drift.

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

I don't know of any sure counterexample, but it seems unlikely from other ev.

> 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 disagree. We can't rec. 6 (at least) dif. forms for one word, considering the huge amount of IE alt.

> 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.
>

I object to rec. of o/e/0 in one syl. of one word. Morph. alt. in place of phon. alt. explains less and is more complicated.

> Once the alternance between *-en- and *-i: stem is accepted,

Sometimes they're related, others not. The -i:s in L has a dif. expl.; thankfully the OL forms are known so there shouldn't be much doubt about its origin.


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?
>

If the meaning was 'red blood', the order seems inconsistent with standard rec. Also, everything else I said.