Re: Etymology of _insula_ (was Re: Thoughts on Word building)

Rob Haden wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 12:53:44 +0000, R A Brown <ray@...>
> wrote:
[snip]

>>>There's another slight problem, actually.  Intervocalic */s/ becomes /0/
>>>(via */h/) before Greek.
>>
>>Of course it does. Yep, a Proto-Greek *na:sos would have give /na:os/
>>(Doric), /nE:os/ (Ionic) and /neO:s/ (Attic).
>
> Interestingly enough, that is the Greek word for 'temple'.
It is - as shown above in all those dialects. But there's more:
Aiolian has _nauos_ and in Spartan inscriptions we have _nawos_, with
'wau' or "digamma". The disappearance of original /w/ in most Greek
dialects is well attested. We must assume, in fact, that the Spartan
forms retain the earliest pronunciation /na:wos/

> Could there be a connection here?
I think not - see above.

>
>>>So, either the original Greek word was *na:ssos,
>>>or */s/ became */h/ before */x/ (= 'h2') was lost.
>>
>>I would think it was *na:ssos, which would also, of course, account for
>>the Latin _na:sus_
>
>
> The question is, where did the second /s/ come from?
I don't know.

[snip]
>>
>>However, he does connect the Celtic *srogn- with Greek _rhenkein_/
>>_rhenkhein_ "to snore", which I suppose is possible if we have
>>metathesis of -ghn- ~ ngh-
>
> Do the Greek variants have a dialectal distribution?  That is, are their
> distributions mutually exclusive?
There doesn't seem to be clear dialect distinction. It is surely to do
with the Greek tendency to drop and aspirate if two occur in a word. One
see this nicely demonstrated in the case forms of thrikh- "hair" -
       sing.    plural
Nom  thriks    trikhes
Acc. trikha    trikhas
Gen  trikhos   trikho:n
Dat. trikhi    thriksi

The Greek stem of 'snore' must have been rhenkh-

As initial /r/ was always aspirated in earliest Greek, we might expect
the from renkh- to become normal. But it may be that as there was no
contrast between [r_h] and [r], the initial aspiration was not so
strongly felt or, indeed, it may be that the forms where -nkh- are shown
reflect a loss of aspiration in the initial /r/ - there would be no way
of showing this in Greek.

The loss of initial /h/ before vowels was already well underway in the
ancient language. It was standard in practically all Ionian dialects,
for example; so it does not seem to me unlikely that the change from
[r_h] --> [r] had already begun also in the ancient language.

> I agree that metathesis of *-ghn- to *-ngh- is more likely than vice-
> versa.  Plus IE */g_h/ becomes Celtic */g/.
Yep.

  However, one problem is the
> Greek vocalism -- _rhenk(h)ein_ vs. _rhis_, _rhinos_.
Absolutely - I don't think there is any connexion with rhi:n-, only that
a proto-Celtic *srogn- may be connected with rhenkh-

> Also, if the
> presumed */g_h/ was part of the root, we should see Greek _rhinks_,
> _rhinkos_ -- to my knowledge, we do not see that.
We don't.

> We *do* see, though, a
> Greek word _rhunkhos_ (neuter s-stem), meaning 'snout' or 'muzzle'.
> Semantically, this is similar to 'nose' in the sense of "jutting/sticking
> out".  Interestingly, this might be related to _rhenk(h)ein_ 'to snore'
Yes - it certainly looks like it. Tho I am not sure how one accounts the
_u_.

> and
> _-runkhs_ as in _pharunkhs_ 'pharynx'.  What do you think?
..and in _larunkhs_ 'larynx'?  :-)

The problem with the last two is that the words are _pharunks_ (at least
the final letter is ksi) and _larunks_ with genitives _pharungos_ and
_larungos_ - not an aspirate in sight.


--
Ray
==================================
ray@carolandray.plus.com
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
MAKE POVERTY HISTORY