On Greek anthro:pos 'man'

About anthro:pos "man, human, person":
1- was the original meaning "man" (opposite to woman) or "human being"? The word for "man" usually means "earthly" (in opposition to celestial gods), "intelligent" or "speaking" one (in opposition to animals) or "mortal" (in opposition to immortal gods).
2- IE or not, how is the word's formation?
*an-tHro:p-
*antHro-Vp
*antH-ro:p-
*antHro-Vp-
*an-tHro-Vp-
haplological *anthro-thro:pos *antho-thropos
dissimilated *anthro:pros
metathesis *antho:pro-

3- Greek words that look similar to, but not necessarily related, are anthrax "coal" and anthre:ne: "wild bee".

4- If the word was a regular IE development in "regular" Greek, its etymology would be evident. But it's not the case. So, we must search for its meaning and etymology on the misty and swampy ground of "Pre-Greek". Non-IE? Not-Greek IE? Semitic? Afroasiatic? Dene-Caucasian. There's no etnomym, eponym or theonym derived from it.

5- If a PIE-Greek shift, how to analyse it?

*andHro:p- *andHro:kW- *antsro:p- *andHroFap- *andHroFop- *sandHroFap- *FandHroFap- *yandHroFap-

JS Lopes

De: stlatos <sean@...>
Para: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
Enviadas: Terça-feira, 29 de Janeiro de 2013 22:26
Assunto: [tied] Re: On Greek thalassa 'sea'

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy wrote:
>
> 2013/1/29, stlatos :
> >
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy wrote:
> >>
> >> Since the obvious epenthetical plosive is voiced /d/, I fail to
> >> understand
> >> how could it be that we get a voiceless aspirate unless through a sort of
> >> double sound shift by which one would expect at least /ph/ if not
> >> anything
> >> more instead of /p/ of -pos
> >
> >
> > There are many words showing t/dH alt. before r:
> >
> >
> > vártra-m S; vart = shield Os; vs
> > várdhra-s = strap/girdle/belt S;
>
> two suffixes; if they have common origin, it's */th/, not */d/
>

So the dif. between:

varatra:- = strap, várdhra-s = strap/girdle/belt S;

isn't the -a-, but two suffixes -tro- and -dhro-? I doubt it. If this alt. is apparent within roots AND suffixes, then -tro- and -dhro- would be rel. just as andrós and ánthro:pos .

> >
> > árthron = joint G; vs
> > artus -u:s L; ard -u- = order Ar;
>
> Armenian /rd/ < */rt/

I took care to separate those showing t from dH; the lower line has artus & ard, vs the upper line with -th-.

>
> >
> > tetró:konta Dor G; cethorcho OI; vs
> > quadrá:ginta: L; kHaRasun = 40 Ar;
>
> This isn't before */r/ because there's */w/ between */t/ and */r/
>

So, if:

quadrupe:s L; cátus.pat- S;

exist it means quadru- < kWetwru-? I doubt it; met. ur>ru seems likely.

> >
> > dragan OE; draw E; vs
> > trahere L;
>
> Different roots

No way.

; You can't base a sound law on such forms, at most
> they can be the same before PIE, just like English foot and pedestrian
> aren't transformation of the same synchronically underlying form
>
> >
> > þragjan = run Go; vs
> > trékho: () threkso: (fut) = run G; dredh = turn/twist/revolve Al; daRnam =
> > (re)turn Ar;
>
> Different roots

No way.

>
> >
> > ané:r andrós (g) anéres (p) G; vs
> > ánthro:pos G; [analogy as if an- = not/bad ?] dró:ps Mac;
>
> This was the demonstrandum
>

Everyone without something against optionality or a crazy theory can tell they're from the same root.

Other C can show the same, like:

émbruon G; bhru:ná- = embryo S;

[ok>o:] dúal = lock of hair MIr; tagl = a single hair Go; = hair in horse tail ON; dHraál = markhor's hair Achar;

gutsá- \ guccha- = bunch of flowers S; grùts = bunch of grapes Khow; gHrútsa = wild strawberries Achar;

Also notice, esp. in Ind-Iran., that r alt. 0, so gutsá- vs. grùts, showing that these all come from opt. r. > R ( > G > 0 ) where tR > dHR, sim. to tx > tHx .