Re: [tied] On Greek anthro:pos 'man'
- --- In email@example.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy wrote:
> > I picked a bunch of words with same sequence (-anth-), maybe some
> > them have the same origin as word anthro:pos:interesting
> > kantharos "beetle", panthe:r "leopard", xanthos "yellow, brown" (=
> > xouthos), kanthos "eye's corner, akanthos "spine, thorn" It's
> > the alternation xanthos/xouthos, that doesn't seem IE (xouthos <-inth-
> > *xonthos?). If we find a doublet *outhro:pos for anthro:pos? With
> > there's minthos and plinthos. Kantharos akin to Skt gandha- "smell",in a
> > sense of stinky insect?isn't
> I still have serious difficulties to understand why "Xanthos/Xouthos
> display a non-IE doublet": I agree they display - if related, which
> assured - a non-Greek doublet, but this is entirely different from anon-IE
> one, and the difference is quite crucial (unless one knows a non-IEGreek ksanthós/ksouthós 'yellow' are from Pre-Greek and likely
> language where both lexemes, xanthos and zouthos, are attested)
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.
- 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: firstname.lastname@example.org
> 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' <
>> *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 email@example.com, "Francesco Brighenti" <frabrig@...>
>>> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, 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
>>> (IE) Anatolian or "para-Anatolian" at
>>> The regular reflex of the PIE *-went- suffix ('having X') is the
>>> 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
>>> the -nth- formations in mainland Greece and the Aegean Islands must
>>> represent the relics of a non-IE pre-Greek substrate, not of an
>>> (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,