Re: German "kein" "no, no one"

From: Grzegorz Jagodziński
Message: 71527
Date: 2013-11-08


 

---In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, <grzegorj2000@...> wrote:

>>As for now, all is clear. The Proto-German (older than the 2nd consonantal shift) was *ni-kein obviously.

Why do you need PGmc. *k here? Won't *x do just as well?

Sergei
 
A good question. A specialist in OHG would be needed... However, as I know, h and hh (ch) are distinguishable in texts. If ch (or hh) in nechein (attested in these two forms) comes from *h < *x < IE *k, why it is doubled? Are there more examples of doubling the Germanic *x in German?
 
I think there are no doubts about ne- in nechein: it is a negation particle. So, ch- is at the beginning of the root. I do not know a single example of OHG ch- < h- < x- < IE *k, and I do not think that negation could form an exception. There are examples of ch- in the initial position but everytime such a ch- comes from Germanic k- (IE g*).
 
The "hardening" idea (ch --> k) is also very suspected. If ch in "nechein" had come from *h < *x (= IE *k), and if it had yielded k in German, it would have been a single example of such a process. Do you know more examples of "hardening" od the Germanic *x into k in German?
 
There is also one more circumstance against this hypothesis. Notice also the presence of the non-negated form kein. Has it also come from the negated one by "hardening"? I do not think it is possible, it is just the original form without negation preserved. So, finally we would have German k = Indo-European *k here. Not very plausible as for me.
 

---In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, <grzegorj2000@...> wrote:

>>The second part is the IE particle *ge. It can be seen, among others, in Germanic *mi-k (accusative "me"). It yielded *z^e in Slavic regularly.

It seems it's not so easy to choose between deriving PSl. *z^e from PIE *ge (thus with Gk. ge 'at least, only, indeed', Goth. -k in mik 'me', auk 'because, but') and deriving it from PIE *gWHe (with Gk. -tHe in eítHe 'if only', OInd. ha, gha 'indeed').
This is exactly what I say, there is not so simple to give the etymology of the Slavic z^e. But OHG nechein < IE -ge- while Dutch geen < IE ghe-, so we have counterparts with both possible particles.

By the way (it is not important for the discussion), the existence of IE *ghe is also possible, cf. Welsh a, ag "with" < ad-ghe (see Pokorny). The particle *dhe could also have existed, compare Slavic ku^-de "where" (Russian gde, Polish gdzie etc.), so the Greek form may also come from it.
 
What is important: according to my hypothesis, OHG nechein and Old Polish niżadny have both exactly the same word-formation structure: 1. negation particle + 2. emphatic particle + 3. the numerel one. So, I do not agree that nechein < *nehwe + *aina- (as it is phonetically improbable, at least as long as we are within Neo-Grammarian frames) but *ne + *ke/*ge + *aina- rather (with *ke in German while *ge in Old Saxon and Dutch).
The Slavic form is not the _strict_ counterpart of German or Dutch as it contains IE *edh-oino- instead of *oino-. Also German and Dutch forms are also not strictly comparable with one another as each of them seems to have a distinct particle.
 
Grzegorz J.