Talk:bás

Etymology

In PIE, is it known that a form such as */gʷens-/ might be possible, ie just with a nasal infix, for some reason? If so, then would the zero grade version - */gʷns-/ perhaps something like *[gʷn̩s] - then not regularly give us syllabic /n̩/ to /an/ in Goidelic? So with the standard */gʷ/ > /b/ this gives us */bans/- > /baːs/ perhaps?

Actually I've just realised that a long /oː / in PIE would work, because of */oː / > /a ː/. Is an original long o possible? That would be more economical.

How far off is thisCecilWard (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@CecilWard: The PC *an that comes from PIE *n̥ becomes é in Goidelic, not á, e.g. déad (“tooth”) < *dant- < *Hdn̥t- and céad (“hundred”) < *kantom < *ḱm̥tóm. I suppose an original long o is possible, but Matasović gives a better etymology of this word than *gʷes- anyway, so I'm going to rewrite the section now. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 08:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Matasović does mention the possibility that it could come from a lengthened o-grade *gʷōsto- from *gʷes- (compare Proto-Slavic *gasiti < *gʷōs-), but clearly prefers the derivation from *gʷeh₂-. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 09:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Anthony, I must be going mad, I knew that once. And ScG "eug" too. So I missed a later change post PC. Could I wriggle out of this by trying to make bás a loanword from British and so keep with the syllabic nasal? not that I would want to as it's even less economical. I much prefer the new version anyway. And long o is rare isn't? I am having to save up for a copy of Matasovic. Good guy, met him a couple of times.CecilWard (talk) 16:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)