Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/h₂ṓws
I suppose it is an o-grade derivative of Appendix:Proto-Indo-European/h₂ew-. Perhaps it deserves to be mentioned ? --Fsojic (talk) 10:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- It's definitely possible but are there any sources for this? —CodeCat 11:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know, I'll try to check. --Fsojic (talk) 16:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- The reconstruction *h₂ew- is wrong. The Hittite verb, lacking initial h as it does, can only descend from a root starting in *h₁. Our entry merges two completely unrelated roots; see LIV under *h₁ew- and ?*h₂weis-. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know, I'll try to check. --Fsojic (talk) 16:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Gender edit
In Ancient Greek, this noun is neuter in its original inherited form. In both Slavic and Germanic, it's also neuter. The Germanic noun reflects a neuter n-stem which is a very rare category in that language, with only a handful of nouns including this one and "eye" (see Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:gem-decl-noun-n-n). I think that indicates that this must have been a neuter noun originally. However, that would mean that the forms given in the declension are wrong, because athematic neuters have no ending in the nominative and accusative. So that would give *h₂óws as the nominative/accusative instead. —CodeCat 23:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Neuter in Old Irish as well. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 00:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Old Irish reflects s-stem so it's also secondary. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 01:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Slavic and Germanic have secondary inflections (s-stem, n-stem) so it could've easily change gender in the singular simply by such remodeling (all Slavic s-stems are neuter). Greek non-nominative forms also reflect n-stem. Given the evidence, both *h₂ṓws and *h₂óws are possible for the nominative. This word is usually cited as a bare stem, but Beekes in EDoG II:1130 gives preference to the *h₂ṓws form so I've decided on that. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 01:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- But why would Germanic speakers remodel the noun into such an unproductive inflectional category? Surely its rarity speaks for its age. And of course, s-stems are all neuter, but why was an s-stem extension chosen in the first place? Maybe because it was neuter, and it was felt important to preserve the gender (which is a common "universal" among IE languages). It can hardly be a coincidence that at least four different branches chose different stem extensions, but they all happened to match in gender? I think that's strong evidence that the original noun was neuter as well. —CodeCat 01:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- It lost the inflectional class, I fail to see how the gender could be considered an archaic feature under such circumstances, even if anomalous. It's really no evidence but speculative indication. Both forms are equally plausible. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 02:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Not to me, they're not. —CodeCat 02:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- If you can provide the reference for the original neuter gender theory or *h₂óws as a NSg I'll be happy to move the page back to the stem form. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- The Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic dual form is probative and decisive. It's a neuter and an s-stem. Only (consonant-stem) neuters have duals in *-ih₁. In NIL (Nomina im Indogermanischen Lexikon), Dagmar Wodtko reconstructs *h₂ows-os, although she concedes that the etymon is difficult and the reconstruction has traditionally been controversial. Interestingly, she also explains the Latin i-stem (following Nussbaum) as reformation after the dual, just like in Baltic. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- If you can provide the reference for the original neuter gender theory or *h₂óws as a NSg I'll be happy to move the page back to the stem form. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Not to me, they're not. —CodeCat 02:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- It lost the inflectional class, I fail to see how the gender could be considered an archaic feature under such circumstances, even if anomalous. It's really no evidence but speculative indication. Both forms are equally plausible. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 02:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- But why would Germanic speakers remodel the noun into such an unproductive inflectional category? Surely its rarity speaks for its age. And of course, s-stems are all neuter, but why was an s-stem extension chosen in the first place? Maybe because it was neuter, and it was felt important to preserve the gender (which is a common "universal" among IE languages). It can hardly be a coincidence that at least four different branches chose different stem extensions, but they all happened to match in gender? I think that's strong evidence that the original noun was neuter as well. —CodeCat 01:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Sanskrit reflex edit
@Rua, Mahagaja, the supposed Sanskrit descendant had been listed since the creation of this page, but as far as I can tell, उसि (usi) does not exist. I've checked the EIEC and several other places where it would be listed, but none mentions it. Does anyone have any support for this? —JohnC5 06:26, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Not me. The usual Sanskrit word for 'ear' is कर्ण (karṇa). The closest things I can find in Monier-Williams are उषस् (uṣas, “the outer passage of the ear”) and ऊष (ūṣa, “the cavity of the ear”); however, those senses are both dictionary-only (M-W gives only "L." = Lexicographers as a citation) and in neither case are they the normal sense of the word (उषस् normally means 'dawn' and ऊष normally means 'salty soil'). If this word has any descendants in Sanskrit, I don't know what they are. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 09:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Mahagaja: I think that's proof enough. Thank you! —JohnC5 10:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Declension edit
Any source for the s-stem-style collective in -ōs?--95.42.25.28 07:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)