Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/tr̥nós
Add topicLatest comment: 7 years ago by माधवपंडित in topic *-nó- stem derivatives
*-nó- stem derivatives
[edit]@माधवपंडित, CodeCat, this doesn't look like an actual root but instead the nominal derivative of *(s)ter-, right? —JohnC5 14:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- @JohnC5: So can this be a noun? I thought it's a root since no descendants attest a word derived from *(s)tern- itself but rather from its derivatives. माधवपंडित (talk) 15:00, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- @माधवपंडित: I'd split this into two entries *tr̥-nóm and ?*tr̥-nús, neither of which probably deserves a full entry. Also what evidence is there of the *(s)? Regardless, this is not a regular root shape. —JohnC5 15:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- @JohnC5: Yes, there are two nouns *tr̥-nóm and *tr̥-nús but they obviously have been derived from the same noun/root, hence there is no need for two separate entries. Perhaps *tr̥-nóm and *tr̥-nús are different forms of the same noun in which case I may be wrong in calling it a root. But still, why two entries?
- @माधवपंडित: Because they are different nominal formations (-o- vs -u-), and this clearly not a root based on the shape. Again, where did the *(s) come from? —JohnC5 15:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- @JohnC5: By guesswork I'd say the (s) is from *(s)ter (“stiff”); the wiktionary entry for thorn identifies it as *(s)tern. But then, *þurnuz claims an origin ultimately from "*ter". I'm confused here. Perhaps *tr̥-nóm and *tr̥-nús are from a root which is something other than *(s)tern-. We can move the page once we figure out what that root is. I put *(s)tern- up because the wiktionary entries for thorn, तृण and трънъ all give the origin as *(s)tern-. माधवपंडित (talk) 16:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- @माधवपंडित: Mainspace etymologies can be very hit or miss. I'll fix this up later. *(s)ter- could easily be the root for these two separate terms, but I'd have to do some research. —JohnC5 16:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- I agree that this can't be a root, but at the same time I haven't ever seen a -nus suffix either. —CodeCat 16:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Yeeeah, I noticed that too. Again, I'll have to see what the sources think. The only other entry I might say is the very weird *suHnús. —JohnC5 16:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- I've made updates. —JohnC5 05:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- I agree that this can't be a root, but at the same time I haven't ever seen a -nus suffix either. —CodeCat 16:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- @माधवपंडित: Mainspace etymologies can be very hit or miss. I'll fix this up later. *(s)ter- could easily be the root for these two separate terms, but I'd have to do some research. —JohnC5 16:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- @JohnC5: By guesswork I'd say the (s) is from *(s)ter (“stiff”); the wiktionary entry for thorn identifies it as *(s)tern. But then, *þurnuz claims an origin ultimately from "*ter". I'm confused here. Perhaps *tr̥-nóm and *tr̥-nús are from a root which is something other than *(s)tern-. We can move the page once we figure out what that root is. I put *(s)tern- up because the wiktionary entries for thorn, तृण and трънъ all give the origin as *(s)tern-. माधवपंडित (talk) 16:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- @माधवपंडित: Because they are different nominal formations (-o- vs -u-), and this clearly not a root based on the shape. Again, where did the *(s) come from? —JohnC5 15:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Scholar! माधवपंडित (talk) 15:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)