From: dgkilday57
Message: 71358
Date: 2013-10-02
---In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, <cybalist@yahoogroups.com> [Bhr.] wrote:Kalasha honjesta seems to continue Proto-Indo-Aryan
*ǰhandha-ǰyaiṣṭhaka-, cf. Urtsun ɔ̄n 'house', Rumbūr han (stem hānd-)
'house, temple of Jeṣṭak' < *handha- (phonetically also ghon, stem
ghōnd- = Vedic gandhá- 'smell'), ǰeṣṭä̅ṅgur 'thumb' : Vedic jyéṣṭha-
'first'. Latin honestior must come from either Proto-Indo-European
*ghon-es-t-(i)yōs- or *g'hon-es-t-(i)yōs-, while *ǰhandha-ǰyaiṣṭhaka-
implies PIE *g'hondho-g(w)yeH-ist(h)o-ko-, so we would have at best a
PIE root *g'hon- in common (provided *handha- reflects a bi-radical
compound *g'hon-dhh1-o-)
[DGK:]
I believe the palatal is correct. In message #65990 (18 Mar 2010), I argued that Latin _honor_ (earlier _hono:s_) denotes a raising, either 'elevation of a man to public office' or 'elevation of an offering to the gods'. The PIE root can then be identified with *g^Hen-, postulated by O. Wiedemann (BB 27:193-205, 1901) to explain Proto-Albanian *zeno: 'I take, seize, begin, hire, conceive (a child)' and the Germanic group including Gothic _du-ginnan_, Old English _on-ginnan_, _be-ginnan_ 'to begin'. I think the PIE sense of *g^Hen- was 'to pick up, take up, raise, suscipere, tollere'. I can find no such root in Pokorny or Mallory & Adams, but it now seems to be attested in four branches of IE.
Note that _honor_ need not reflect inherited /o/-grade. As I pointed out in my old message, the same /o/-umlaut could have operated on *heno(:)- which we find in _homo:_, _hominem_ from OL *hemo:, _hemonem_ (Paul. Fest.). Thus your reconstructiunculae of _honestior_ to PIE /o/-grade forms are unwarranted. De Vaan also neglected /o/-umlaut, referring _honor_ to PIE *gHon- or *g^Hon-, and saying "no further etymology is known". Likewise Walde-Hofmann, "weitere Anknüpfung unsicher, auch durch die Unkenntnis der Gbd. erschwert". If the Grundbedeutung was indeed 'a raising', the problem is greatly simplified.