---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.