Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/mon-

Definition

A definition would be good, right? We usually include them. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. And the etym can't be itself, can it? :\ Leasnam (talk) 18:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

And shouldn't this form be *manw- ? Leasnam (talk) 18:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Suspect vowel

Many linguists argue that there was no Proto-Indo-European *a. With these reflexes in particular, *mon- looks like a better reconstruction, anyway. Jackwolfroven (talk) 17:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

*mon- (neck)

The same stem also appears to have given many words for neck, necklace:

• Proto-Germanic: *manō, *manją (“necklace”)
• Proto-Celtic: *monyā > Old Irish: muin f
• Sanskrit: मन्या (manyā)
• Latin: monīle (“necklace”)
• Proto-Slavic: *monisto (“necklace”)
• Ancient Greek: μάννος (mánnos, “necklace”) (possibly)

No idea if related to the current Proto-Indo-European *mon- [*man-?] (“human”). Bezimenen (talk) 12:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

o-grade oof *men-?

Is there any reason to think of this root as the o-grade from *men- "think", regarding humans as "thinking one"? Y11971alex (talk) 09:53, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

i've just always assumed that it is, so much so that it's never occurred to me to even look for a source. if i get around to it, i will try to find something, most likely from a scholar who believes that all PIE o is derived. However note also Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/-mḗn, which might be related, despite its long vowel (maybe it's from men-s-?) and if so, it could mean that the original sense was something like "man; agent; acting one" and the mental sense is derived from that. —Soap— 10:40, 24 June 2024 (UTC)