Re: On Greek anthro:pos 'man'

1. "human being"

2. None of them: long /o:/ continues two or three PIE phonemes from
two different PIE morphemes,
*h2andhro- + *h3(o(:))kw-s (*h3kw- or *h3okw- or *h3o:kw- depends on
ablaut *in the position of final member of a compound*)

3. related if the meaning is "looking dark" (as in Old Near Eastern
designations), but this is more speculative

4. No! False. It's etymology isn't evident just because:

i - its potential etyma are variously continued in Greek (convergence
of homonyms)

ii - a PIE compound can have been coined with words that afterwards
disappeared in Greek (it's nonetheless a perfect PIE word, think of
Latin hospes < *ghosti-potis where *potis as such has disappeared)

iii - supposing that a language has lost a couple of words from its
certain (PIE) stage is more safe that positing a whole language
*family* that would have been lost without leaving even one descendant
language

iv - but Indo-Europeanists often hate PIE and try in every way to
demolish as much as possible the reconstruction of PIE. They want a
small, shortly lived, and territorially restricted PIE, possibly made
of just those words that are continued by all IE languages (= no word)
or at least of roots that are attested in every IE language (= just
one, *bherg'h-, provided it's in fact present in Latin and Greek)

5. *andHro:kW- with laryngeals: *h2andHro-h3(o(:))kW-

2013/1/30, Joao S. Lopes <josimo70@...>:

> 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 .
>
>
>