Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [tied] Evening/Night (was Re: The "Mother" Problem)

Expand Messages
  • Miguel Carrasquer
    On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 16:45:57 +0000, Rob ... Some forms have */e/ [Gr. hésperos, Lat. vesper, Balto-Slavic *wekeras], others have */(V)i/ [We. ucher
    Message 1 of 151 , Feb 4, 2005
      On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 16:45:57 +0000, Rob
      <magwich78@...> wrote:

      >--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@w...> wrote:
      >> >The Attic Greek form is actually hésperos. Some other Ancient
      >> >Greek dialects had wésperos.
      >> >
      >> >Could the Lithuanian word reflect earlier *vaskaras?
      >> >
      >> >The Greek forms with -p- don't seem to match the Balto-Slavic
      >> >forms. One would think that a protoform like *weskWeros would
      >> >lead to Greek *westeros, not *wesperos. But then I could be
      >> >wrong. Could the Latin form actually be a borrowing from a Greek
      >> >dialect? We could be lead to a protoform *weskWeros instead of
      >> >*wesperos.
      >> There's also Armenian gis^er "night" (o-stem ~ a:-stem)
      >> which must come from something like *weik^wer-os/ah2 (the
      >> Ablaut grade *i is also seen in Slavic vIc^erá).
      >Why, then, don't we see Attic Greek *heîsperos?

      Some forms have */e/ [Gr. hésperos, Lat. vesper,
      Balto-Slavic *wekeras], others have */(V)i/ [We. ucher <
      *woiksero-, Arm. gis^er].

      As I mentioned, the root "change" shows the same variation
      *weik- vs. *wek- (~ *wenk-). For the nasal-infix variant,
      the forms given in Pokorny Lith. úkanas "trübe", ùnkna
      "shadow", Lat. umbra < *unksra: "shadow" may also be
      relevant (*wnks-n/r-?).

      >> Hamp has proposed an etymology *weik(s)-ksp-er-os/ah2,
      >> consisting of *weik- "change" (also *weig- [> E. week] and
      >> with the same meaning *wek-/*wenk-) and *k(W)sep-r/n-
      >> "night" (Grk. pséphas "dark", Hitt. ispant-, Av. xs^apar,
      >> Ved. ks.ap- "night"), which I would see as derived
      >> ("sleepy-time") from *swep- (or *sWep-) "sleep". That would
      >> make it *we(i)k-sWp-er-os/-ah2 "transition into night,
      >> bed-time".
      >Where does the aspiration in the Greek form come from?

      From *w-. This is regular in the context *w...s- (hennu:mi
      < *wes-nu-, hestía < *westia:).

      >Also, IE was presumably SOV at the time of its breakup. So, such a
      >compound would have 'transition' at the end, not at the beginning
      >(since it seems to be the headword).

      Hamp, if I understand correctly, suggests a phrase *<weiks
      ksperos> where *weiks is a (root) noun in the nom. and
      *ksperos is genitive.

      My source is Olsen TNIBA, p. 179, where Hamp is quoted in a
      footnote as "an old compound ... *ueik-ksperos (perhaps
      originally a syntactic phrase, and, if so, possibly with
      *-ks- by haplology for *-ks-ks-)".

      Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
    • stlatos
      ... I think that there was OL * do:to:r giver , and * sakrodo:to:r giver of the sacifice (to the gods) . The cp. had dis. of r-r r-0 in * sakrodo:tr+ *
      Message 151 of 151 , Jan 6, 2012
        --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Rob" <magwich78@...> wrote:

        > Aha. So it's the same formant as is used in the deverbal
        > (collective?) adjectival formation in *-tó? I also think that that
        > form is related to the so-called 't-stems', e.g. Latin sacerdo:s,
        > sacerdo:tis < *sakro-do:-t-s < *sak(?)-r-o-dexW-t-. Is that what
        > you're saying, here, as well?

        I think that there was OL * do:to:r 'giver', and * sakrodo:to:r 'giver of the sacifice (to the gods)'. The cp. had dis. of r-r > r-0 in * sakrodo:tr+ > * sakrodo:t+ (such as gen. * sakrodo:tros > * sakrodo:tos). Although sometimes con. > * dHexY+ instead, I think it describes a reciprocal relationship sim. to Greek Do:sítheos.

        The root * sak+ is identical to * kas+ 'cut' (as in cut > kill/sacifice > (be) sacred, etc.), since the order of C in a root, whether to each other or to V, didn't matter in PIE.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.