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

Re: [tied] On Greek anthro:pos 'man'

Expand Messages
  • Tavi
    ... of ... interesting ... -inth- ... in a ... isn t ... non-IE ... Greek ksanthós/ksouthós yellow are from Pre-Greek and likely related to Etruscan
    Message 1 of 71 , Feb 1, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy wrote:
      >
      > > I picked a bunch of words with same sequence (-anth-), maybe some
      of
      > > them have the same origin as word anthro:pos:
      > > kantharos "beetle", panthe:r "leopard", xanthos "yellow, brown" (=
      > > xouthos), kanthos "eye's corner, akanthos "spine, thorn" It's
      interesting
      > > the alternation xanthos/xouthos, that doesn't seem IE (xouthos <
      > > *xonthos?). If we find a doublet *outhro:pos for anthro:pos? With
      -inth-
      > > there's minthos and plinthos. Kantharos akin to Skt gandha- "smell",
      in a
      > > sense of stinky insect?
      >
      > I still have serious difficulties to understand why "Xanthos/Xouthos
      > display a non-IE doublet": I agree they display - if related, which
      isn't
      > assured - a non-Greek doublet, but this is entirely different from a
      non-IE
      > one, and the difference is quite crucial (unless one knows a non-IE
      > language where both lexemes, xanthos and zouthos, are attested)
      >
      Greek ksanthós/ksouthós 'yellow' are from Pre-Greek and likely
      related to Etruscan zam(a)thi 'gold'. Of course, this doesn't mean ALL
      the words with a segment -anth- must necessarily have the same origin.
    • Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
      The shortcoming is that this set of diachronic transformations has no independent evidence. In itself it s neither good nor bad, but if compared with a regular
      Message 71 of 71 , Apr 9, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        The shortcoming is that this set of diachronic transformations has
        no independent evidence. In itself it's neither good nor bad, but if
        compared with a regular etymology like *h2ndhro-h3kw-o-s...

        2013/4/9, Joao S. Lopes <josimo70@...>:
        > The relationship would not be through regular Greek. Perhaps some substratal
        > non-Greek IE compound *h1ndHus-ro:po-. U dropped as in some Albanian and
        > Armenian words; and -r- < -sr- or < rhotacism -s-, as possbile shifts. I'd
        > guess *h1n-dHuh2s-h3oKW- > *anthuzoq-o > *anthuroqo- > anthropo-. If it was
        > a "normal" Greek word, expected form would * a(n)thyops
        >
        > JS Lopes
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > ________________________________
        > De: Bhrihskwobhloukstroy <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...>
        > Para: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
        > Enviadas: Terça-feira, 9 de Abril de 2013 10:14
        > Assunto: Re: [tied] Re: On Greek anthro:pos 'man'
        >
        >
        >
        > /th/, /r/, /o:/, /p/ (and the absence of /u/, /h/, and /-s-/) would
        > remain unexplained: too much for a six-phonemes lexical entry (final
        > -os isn't diagnostic)
        >
        > 2013/4/9, Joao S. <josimo70@...>:
        >>
        >> Could be Greek anthro:pos related to Hit. antuuahhas- / antuhs- 'man' <
        >> nom.
        >> *h1n-dHueh2-o:s, gen.sg. *h1n-dHuh2-s-os ? It would imply an Anatolic IE
        >> substratum in Greece. Maybe Endymion also fits into this root.
        >>
        >> JS Lopes
        >>
        >> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Francesco Brighenti" <frabrig@...>
        >> wrote:
        >>>
        >>>
        >>>
        >>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Rick McCallister wrote:
        >>>
        >>> > Isn't Greek -nth- cognate to Anatolian -nd-???
        >>>
        >>> We (you & I) have discussed this in the past. See my post about Anna
        >>> Morpurgo-Davies' arguments against the Pre-Greek substratum in Greek
        >>> being
        >>> (IE) Anatolian or "para-Anatolian" at
        >>>
        >>> http://tech.dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/63882
        >>>
        >>> The regular reflex of the PIE *-went- suffix ('having X') is the
        >>> consonant
        >>> cluster -nt- in Greek, and -nt-/-nd- in Anatolian. Why would Greek have
        >>> borrowed names in -nd-/-nt- from an Anatolian or "para-Anatolian"
        >>> substrate with operating a shift to -nth- against the expected -nd- or
        >>> -nt- ?
        >>>
        >>> Also J. Chadwick ("Greek and Pre-Greek", TPhS 1969, pp. 80-98) stated
        >>> that
        >>> the -nth- formations in mainland Greece and the Aegean Islands must
        >>> represent the relics of a non-IE pre-Greek substrate, not of an
        >>> Anatolian
        >>> (or "para-Anatolian") IE substrate possessed of -nd-/-nt- formations. He
        >>> noted there are no known examples of one and the same IE-inherited root,
        >>> common to both the Greek and Anatolian branches, to which is added the
        >>> -nth- suffix in Greek and the -nt-/-nd- one in Anatolian.
        >>>
        >>> Kind regards,
        >>> Francesco
        >>>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.