Re: [tied] Brugmann's Law

> If this were indeed the only possible explanation, we'd have to treat it
> as satisfactory, but I can see other possibilities. The Latin noun is a
> consonantal stem, so the quantity surely requires no laryngeal
> explanation. All one needs is length generalised from the original
> nom.sg., as normally in Latin (<auro:ra>, <cruo:ris>, etc.). Perhaps
> <ro:s> is an old collective ~ mass noun related to *h1er-s-, which would
> allow us to posit an original paradigm like *h1ro:s, acc. *h1ros-m.,
> gen. *h1rés-(e)s (or the like).
>
> Now, Sanskrit has no Brugmannian length in nouns like <dáma-> 'house,
> home' and <mára-> 'death', where other branches point to *o. An
> otherwise invisible laryngeal suffix may often be the reason, as it
> certainly is in cases where the laryngeal manifests itself in some other
> way, cf. <rátha-> 'wagon, chariot' < *rót-h2-o-. This makes the analysis
> of <rása-> 'juice, liquid' as *h1rós-h2-o- a not unjustifiable
> possibility. At the very least, what works for <dáma-> ought to work for
> <rása-> as well. I'm not sure about the best derivation of <rasá:>
> 'moisture'. It must be the same thing as BSl. *rasa:, so anything like
> *h1res-áh2 is ruled out. *h1ros-h2-áh2 looks cumbersome but may be the
> right solution (related to *h1ros-h2-o- like Lat. rota to Skt. rátha-?).
>
> Piotr

But where does this *h2 come from? An why *h2 and not *H (any laryngeal)?
You ruled out the possibility of the laryngeal in the root for Latin,
correctly in my oppionion, but still you stick with the laryngeal. I don't
think we can say >>>what works for <dáma-> ought to work for <rása-> as
well>>>, it *could* work but this is still no proof.

Mate