Re: On Greek anthro:pos 'man'

/th/, /r/, /o:/, /p/ (and the absence of /u/, /h/, and /-s-/) would
remain unexplained: too much for a six-phonemes lexical entry (final
-os isn't diagnostic)

2013/4/9, Joao S. <josimo70@...>:

>
> Could be Greek anthro:pos related to Hit. antuuahhas- / antuhs- 'man' < nom.
> *h1n-dHueh2-o:s, gen.sg. *h1n-dHuh2-s-os ? It would imply an Anatolic IE
> substratum in Greece. Maybe Endymion also fits into this root.
>
> JS Lopes
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Francesco Brighenti" <frabrig@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Rick McCallister wrote:
>>
>> > Isn't Greek -nth- cognate to Anatolian -nd-???
>>
>> We (you & I) have discussed this in the past. See my post about Anna
>> Morpurgo-Davies' arguments against the Pre-Greek substratum in Greek being
>> (IE) Anatolian or "para-Anatolian" at
>>
>> http://tech.dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/63882
>>
>> The regular reflex of the PIE *-went- suffix ('having X') is the consonant
>> cluster -nt- in Greek, and -nt-/-nd- in Anatolian. Why would Greek have
>> borrowed names in -nd-/-nt- from an Anatolian or "para-Anatolian"
>> substrate with operating a shift to -nth- against the expected -nd- or
>> -nt- ?
>>
>> Also J. Chadwick ("Greek and Pre-Greek", TPhS 1969, pp. 80-98) stated that
>> the -nth- formations in mainland Greece and the Aegean Islands must
>> represent the relics of a non-IE pre-Greek substrate, not of an Anatolian
>> (or "para-Anatolian") IE substrate possessed of -nd-/-nt- formations. He
>> noted there are no known examples of one and the same IE-inherited root,
>> common to both the Greek and Anatolian branches, to which is added the
>> -nth- suffix in Greek and the -nt-/-nd- one in Anatolian.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Francesco
>>
>
>
>