Re: [tied] Labiovelar in Latin

On Fri, 16 May 2003 17:49:54 +0200, alex_lycos <altamix@...>
wrote:

>1) you are right. There is no PIE *gWiete, but the right form is *gWieta

No, the right form is *gWih3teh2 (> *gWi:ta: > Lat. vi:ta). Another
possibility is *gWih3woteh2 > *vi:vota > vi:ta ( = Greek <biote:>, OCS
<z^ivotU>, Lith. <gyvatà>, Skt. <ji:vatha->).

>2) there is _NO_ Latin vi:vitia, just a supposed latin "vivitia" as a
>supposed proto-latin "vivitia" for latin "vita".

Spa. viveza "liveliness" < vi:vitia.

>3) It happens Walde & Hoffmann see there an PIE *gWieta and this because
>of the followings:
>
>Latin "vita" , oscan "bitttam" wird gewöhnlich mit Grk. "biote" auf Idg.
>*gWieta zurückgeführt.

*gWi:ta: or *gWi:wota:. There is no *gWieta.

>4) for "alive" there is Greek "zoo", Gothic "qius", Old. Ir "biu", Bret
>" beo" and they are deriving from PIE *gWio- wherefrom is the Rom. word
>"viu" ( alternance g'iu). The lost of "v" for having from Latin "vivus"
>and "viu" will work for "viu" but never for "g'iu" and beside of it, it
>is evidently that Latin _have had the habbit_ to introduce an "v" for
>making derivatives. So , one can say, there is no lost of the Latin
>intervocalic "v" in Eastern Romance, but there was none since just Latin
>derived the words with a supplimentary "v".

Nonsense. The PIE form is *gWih3wos > *gWi:wos, which regularly
gives: Skt. ji:vá-, OP j^iva-, Av. j^va-, Osc. bivus, Welsh biw (byw),
Lith. gývas, Latv. dzîvs, OCS z^ivU, Grk. zo:ós (Myc. zo-wo-)
(*gWih3wós > *gWyo:wós > dzo:wós) or bí(F)os (*gWiwos), Toch. A. s'o-,
B. s'a:w- (< *s'ya:wä < *gWyo:w-, as in Greek), Goth. qius, OIr. biu.
All these forms show /w/, just as Latin vi:vus.

Latin vi:vus regularly gives Port. vivo, Spa, vivo, Cat. viu, Fr. vif,
Ita. vivo, Rom. viu.


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...