Latin and Slavonic for `moon'

[X99Lynx at aol.com]

I wrote:
<<because *gon- is already in Greek *gno-, possibly before
German was invented.>>

In a message dated 4/18/99 12:12:20 AM, mcv at wxs.nl wrote:
<<Invented?>>

Well, unless it does some damage I'm not aware of, I prefer the word.  I have
every reason to believe language is a human artifact and not something
growing under plant light.  Not that Germanic was invented by any particular
person with the idea of getting a patent.  But there is more common intention
and common purpose behind any language than there is random noises, and
therefore invented seems a better word than "first evolved."

I wrote:
<<After all, if you follow Mallory or Dolukhanov the
proto-Slavs were the Agricultural Scythians in 500BCE and therefore had
contact with the Greeks before the Germans. (Unless you accept a BSG) And of
course if the P-slavs were IE they should have had a *gon/*gnu or *kon/*knu
and i-stems quite before they met the Goths.  But anyway...>>

mcv at wxs.nl wrote:
<<Slavic hasn't preserved *gen(H)- except in the derivation ze~tI
(*gen(@)tis) "son-in-law, sister's husband".>>

Please be patient with me here.  I'm trying.  I'm not sure why the -(H)- is
there, but let me get back to that.

Do you mean:

1. that intial *gn- never passed directly into historic Slavic as an initial
/kn/ or an initial /-n/?  (By directly I mean not through a sister language
but from *PIE to *p-Slavic to Slavic or a particular Slavic tongue.)  I'm
distinguishing here from the "first palatalization" which would have the *g-
change before an original front vowel but I'm thinking not necessarily a
*gn-.  Here the analogy is to *glava (pSl)> glowa (pol), golova (rus w/tort).

2. I see *gen> gno- or something like that happen in Greek (and maybe
German).  If you accept that, does it mean that this transformation did not
happen in PIE or that it could not have occurred or passed into proto-Slavic?

3. It seems the gen- and gno- coexisted in Homer.  Both "genea" and "gnotos"
refer to relatives.  Obviously which form would have affected how the word
passed from *PIE into the daughter languages or from, say, Greek into another
IE language.  (Oddly I have OCS "daughter-in-law" sn~xa (Pol c~rka /synowa)
and I believe the Sanskrit also has as intial snu- for daughter-in-law.  And
znuots, Lett.)  Does this "diglossia" (if this is the right word) allow the
suggestion that the same process could have happened some time in the early
Slavic?  Or that both forms could not have appeared as they did in Greek?

4. You say that <<Slavic hasn't preserved *gen(H)- except in the derivation
ze~tI (*gen(@)tis)>>.  I don't understand the -(H)-.  How would you see that
passing into Greek as both "genea" and "gnotos" or "gnosis"?

Finally, isn't it peculiar that *gen-  or *gen(H)- a root/stem with
tremendous amount of extensions in Greek (even Homer) and German (and
Sanskrit as far as I can tell) - shows up in Slavic in only one word?  And
just as peculiar that it reenters (e.g., ksiezyc) in so many meanings only
through Germanic?  Does that possibly cast doubt on the whole way this
reconstruction has been approached?

That sounds more confident than I am about these questions.  But I am having
I think a reasonable problem with how gno- (Greek or otherwise) is being left
out of the *kuningaz equation.   My best source on this (Stieber, translated
for me out of Polish by a helper) is not helping me with this - especially
how it fits chronologically.

Regards,
Steve Long