Latin and Slavonic for `moon'
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv at wxs.nl
Sat Apr 24 09:49:29 UTC 1999
X99Lynx at aol.com wrote:
>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).
The Slavic palatalizations are not applicable here, only the
satem palatalization *g^ > z. Cf. znaju "I know" from *g^en(H3)-
"to know".
>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?
Not sure what you mean. The zero grade variant is PIE.
>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.
Wholly different root: *snusos (Lat. nurus, Arm. nu, Grk. nuos,
Skt. snus.a:).
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv at wxs.nl
Amsterdam
More information about the Indo-european
mailing list