Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/kwep-
Any merit here?[edit]
@CodeCat I'm not near my reference material at the moment and don't want this to go unchecked. —JohnC5 21:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- De Vaan gives this as *kewp- instead, and gives its meaning as "tremble" or "desire". The rather different meaning of Balto-Slavic is not explained. —CodeCat 21:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- And I suppose the motivation for *kwep- would be the absence of palatalization in Sanskrit and Balto-Slavic? If anything, the Sanskrit perfect चुकोप (cukopa) looks more like *ke-kówp-e to me, but that could be a secondary schwebeablaut. —JohnC5 21:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- De Vaan reconstructs o-grade *kowp- for Italic as well, to explain cuppēs with application of the "littera-rule", which I am not familiar with. Everything else seems to be zero grade, including Balto-Slavic which has an innovated lengthened zero grade. The Sanskrit perfect looks odd to me, why is there c as the first consonant and k as the second? For that matter, why is there u in the reduplicated syllable rather than a < e? Is the palatalisation in cu- a leftover from a former *ke-? —CodeCat 21:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- According to Sihler, some Latin words "show lengthening of a consonant, with shortening of the preceding vowel if long." So *djous patēr > Iūpiter > Iuppiter and Old Latin leitera > lītera > littera and maybe *meyth₂- > *mītō > mittō. This is apparently the littera-rule. So cuppēs < cūpēs < *koupēds < *k(e/o)wp-ed-s?
- The proposed path for चुकोप (cukopa) would be like *ke-kówp-e > *čakawpa with the cu- being analogic to the present stem, but that is just speculative.
- LIV has *keu̯p- "(innerlich) beben", *ku̯eh₁p- "sieden", and *ku̯ep- "hauchen".
- Derksen prefers *kʷh₂up- for the Balto-Slavic descendants.
- I propose moving the Sanskrit, Latin, and perhaps Norse hjúfa < *heupaną over to *kewp- and then put the BSl descendants somewhere else. Unfortunately, I'm about to leave for a trip, so I may not be able to do this soon, if you wanted to move it. —JohnC5 00:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- De Vaan reconstructs o-grade *kowp- for Italic as well, to explain cuppēs with application of the "littera-rule", which I am not familiar with. Everything else seems to be zero grade, including Balto-Slavic which has an innovated lengthened zero grade. The Sanskrit perfect looks odd to me, why is there c as the first consonant and k as the second? For that matter, why is there u in the reduplicated syllable rather than a < e? Is the palatalisation in cu- a leftover from a former *ke-? —CodeCat 21:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- And I suppose the motivation for *kwep- would be the absence of palatalization in Sanskrit and Balto-Slavic? If anything, the Sanskrit perfect चुकोप (cukopa) looks more like *ke-kówp-e to me, but that could be a secondary schwebeablaut. —JohnC5 21:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Dubious behaviour[edit]
I've updated the descendants, however, they exhibit some peculiar features. The 0-grade denomial ye-present in Sanskrit, for example, is expected to be R[é]-ye (or alternatively R[0]-yé). Balto-Slavic data also exhibits some unusual grades (some with acute, others without), which I don't know how to explain.
Probably, splitting the meanings "to steam, to boil" from "to smell, aroma" as Derksen proposes is advisable? Several authors (Vasmer, Trubachev /ESSJa/, Georgiev /BER/) mention as a cognate to Slavic *koprъ, *kopněti the Sanskrit कपि (kapi, “murky, stinky”). If anyone has reference to confirm this etymology, add it in the official entry. Bezimenen (talk) 17:47, 15 November 2019 (UTC)