2013/10/2,
dgkilday57@... <
dgkilday57@...>:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---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'.
Res: [tied] Re: Latin Honor < ? (65985)
The form *wenh1-us- avoids the difficulty that Old Latin *venos
(nom./acc. sg. from *wenh1-es-) should have undergone /o/-umlaut of
the /e/ in this position, with a simple nasal between the vowels and
/w/, /h/, or zero before the /e/. Hence OL <dvenos> > *dvonos >
<bonus>, *hemo: (old acc. sg. <hemonem> Paul. Fest.) > <homo:>, *enos
> <onus>. We should expect Lat. *vonus, not <venus>, from an
/es/-stem.
[tied] Re: Latin Honor < ? (65989)
The /o/-umlaut which I have described is independent of the shifts
before /w/ or /l/ pinguis, and after /sw/. That it is indeed umlaut is
shown by <bene> from *dvene: (with iambic shortening) and <bellus>
from *dvenelos, beside <bonus> from <dvenos>. Merely having a
consonant (other than /s/) plus /w/ before the /e/ does not force the
shift. I suspect that initial /y/ would also fit this scheme, but I
have no examples of Old Latin *yeno- or *yemo-.
I leave <vomo:> sub judice, since I am doubtful that an umlauted
root-vowel would be generalized from the 1sg. and 3pl. pres. ind. to
the other forms.
DGK
Res: [tied] Re: Latin Honor < ? (65990)
With <honor> and <honestus>, I think we are dealing with reflexes of
IE *g^Hen- 'to raise, elevate, take up' vel sim. The /es/-stem
*g^Henes-, *g^Henos 'raising, elevation' would become in Old Latin
*henes-, *henos. The nom./acc. sg. would undergo /o/-umlaut, just as
*hemo: (old acc. <hemonem>, Paul. Fest.) went to <homo:>. This
umlauted root-vowel would then spread from *honos to the other cases
and the associated adjective *henestos, hence Lat. <honestus>. The old
sense of this adjective, 'elevated', survives in the legal term
<honestior>, which is contrasted to <humilior>. In the later Empire,
the distinction between honestiores and humiliores effectively
replaced the old one between patricians and plebeians.
Like <amor>, <labor>, <timor>, and some others, <honor> (older
<hono:s>, still common in classical Latin) is an abstract deverbal
noun which can be used concretely. OL *heno:s would have been umlauted
to <hono:s> as above. The sense 'raising' has been specialized in two
basic ways. On the one hand, <honor> is 'elevation to public office',
hence 'public office, magistracy' and figuratively 'distinction,
honor'. On the other hand, <honor> is 'elevation of an offering to the
gods', hence 'sacrificial animal on the altar' and 'libation on the
table'. Both these latter literal senses are found in the Aeneid, and
the attempt to explain them as 'honor paid to the gods' in apposition
to omitted nouns meaning 'offering' is very clumsy.
The IE root *g^Hen- was postulated by Wiedemann (Etymologien. 1. Got.
<du-ginnan> usw., BB 27:193-205, 1901) to explain Proto-Albanian
*zeno: (Tosk <ze.:>, Gheg <za,>) 'I take; seize; begin; hire; conceive
(a child)' as well as the Germanic group which includes Gothic
<du-ginnan>, Old English <on-ginnan>, <be-ginnan>, etc., 'to begin'.
The Gmc. geminate is explained by a generalized present stem *g^Hen-w-
or *g^Hen-n- corresponding to the Sanskrit 8th or 9th present class.
In my view an original sense 'to pick up, take up, raise, suscipere,
tollere' for *g^Hen- explains the attested senses of these words
reasonably well, and those of <honor> and <honestus>.
> 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".
Bhr.: in this case the Latin outcome of *g'hen-es-t-iyōs (*g^Hen- as
You'd put it) would have been replaced by a synchronical derivative of
the outcome of *g'hen-ōs-
DGK: 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.
> (...) 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.
Bhr.: it offers a good etymology for *handha- as well