Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/yéwgos
Add topicLatest comment: 8 years ago by CodeCat
@JohnC5 Isn't it semantically difficult to connect this with योगस् n (yogas, “meditation, religious abstraction; the half of a lunar month”)? Doesn't योग m (yoga, “team, yoke; yoking”) (nom. sg. योगः (yogaḥ), Vedic योगस् (yogas)) makes more sense? —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 20:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Aryamanarora That is true; the problem is the declension. This *yéwgos is a neuter *-s- athematic declension noun (as is योगस्), whereas योग is a masculine thematic declension noun. The meaning is closer in line in attested usage, but योग underwent the same semantic shift (yoking > application or concentration of the thoughts > meditation) as योगस्. Under *yewg-, we list the thematic declension separately (though annoyingly, it has the same lemma form, *yéwgos). I believe योगस् is the direct descendant of the athematic *yéwgos but is not very common, whereas योग is either from a separate thematic *yéwgos (though I would like to see a few cognates) or is a later Sanskrit deverbal noun, but clearly is more common than योगस्. Does that make sense? —JohnC5 20:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- @JohnC5 It kind of makes sense – the thematic and athematic distinction is what differentiates the two. Does this mean Proto-Indo-Iranian *yáwgas should have two noun sections? One for the athematic योगस् (yogas) and another for योग (yoga) or should bothe be listed together? —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 20:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Aryamanarora Indeed, *yáwgas should have two nouns with separate declensions as, in theory, should *yéwgos. I'd like to see a few more examples within or outside of PII of the thematic declension. You still seem hesitant about the distinction I've made. Is there anything Code or I could explain? —JohnC5 20:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- @JohnC5 It's just an interesting concept, one that I will take time to fully understand and accept. This table of the declension of yogas makes it much more acceptable; it lines up nicely with the declension of *yéwgos. Thank you! —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 20:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Aryamanarora Yep, check out *ǵénh₁os > जनस् (jánas), *gʷʰéros > हरस् (háras),*h₃énh₂os > अनस् (ánas), *ḱléwos > श्रवस् (śrávas), *ménos > मनस् (mánas), *nébʰos > नभस् (nábhas), *tépos > तपस् (tápas). —JohnC5 21:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Think of it this way. The thematic *yéwgos is masculine and has the stem *yéwgo- plus the masculine nominative singular ending *-s. Thus, the -s is a case ending and appears only in the nominative singular and is replaced with other endings in other cases. The athematic *yéwgos is neuter and has the stem *yéwgos ~ *yéwges- plus the neuter nominative singular ending, which is a zero morpheme (no ending). Here, the -s is part of the stem and therefore appears in all forms. —CodeCat 21:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- @JohnC5 It's just an interesting concept, one that I will take time to fully understand and accept. This table of the declension of yogas makes it much more acceptable; it lines up nicely with the declension of *yéwgos. Thank you! —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 20:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Aryamanarora Indeed, *yáwgas should have two nouns with separate declensions as, in theory, should *yéwgos. I'd like to see a few more examples within or outside of PII of the thematic declension. You still seem hesitant about the distinction I've made. Is there anything Code or I could explain? —JohnC5 20:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- @JohnC5 It kind of makes sense – the thematic and athematic distinction is what differentiates the two. Does this mean Proto-Indo-Iranian *yáwgas should have two noun sections? One for the athematic योगस् (yogas) and another for योग (yoga) or should bothe be listed together? —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 20:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)