Re: [tied] Evening/Night (was Re: The "Mother" Problem)
- On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 16:45:57 +0000, Rob
>Some forms have */e/ [Gr. hésperos, Lat. vesper,
>--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, 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
>> 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?
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
>> Hamp has proposed an etymology *weik(s)-ksp-er-os/ah2,From *w-. This is regular in the context *w...s- (hennu:mi
>> 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,
>Where does the aspiration in the Greek form come from?
< *wes-nu-, hestía < *westia:).
>Also, IE was presumably SOV at the time of its breakup. So, such aHamp, if I understand correctly, suggests a phrase *<weiks
>compound would have 'transition' at the end, not at the beginning
>(since it seems to be the headword).
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
- --- In email@example.com, "Rob" <magwich78@...> wrote:
>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.
> 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?
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.