Re: Res: [tied] Etymology of Rome - h1rh1-em-/h1rh1-o:m-

From: Piotr Gasiorowski
Message: 47825
Date: 2007-03-14

On 2007-03-14 07:45, Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:
> On 2007-03-14 00:37, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>> I will start with the 'worst thing': No. Piotr, you are not right.
>> The (H)RHV- roots are ones of the most problematic PIE roots:
> ...
>> For the (H)RHV-sequences (initial position) the outputs are:
>> a) the H is simply lost
>> b) the laryngeal H will be subject of the laryngeal-metathesis
>> If you know some contra-examples please post them here...
> Laryngeal metathesis in *(C)rHV- sequences?? What do you mean? *(C)rVH-?
> No such thing is attested. The PIE resonant was normally syllabic in
> such sequences, and after the loss of the laryngeal the outcome was
> phoneticaly *(C)r.rV- or *(C)&rV- (the difference is largely a matter of
> a given author's favoured notation). The further development is
> branch-specific. Cf. Lat. haru-(spex) < *g^Hr.H-u- (Skt. hirá: 'vein'),
> Skt. giráti, Slavic *z^IroN < *gWr.h3-é/ó- 'devour', Lat. varus 'pimple'
> < *wr.H-o- (Lith. viras 'tapeworm cyst').

P.S. Judging from your example (Russ. nyt') and your formulation of the
possibilities, your ideas were inspired by Darden's 1990 article on
laryngeals and syllabicity in BSl and IE. You should be warned that
Darden's examples involve "long-diphthong" forms of the supposed shape
*nHu-C-, *nHi-C-, where laryngeal metathesis IS admissible (if the
analysis is correct). Initial syllabic resonants in the zero grade of
*ReC- roots (possibly including *R.H-V-) were avoided perhaps already in
PIE, hence their frequent restructuring in the branches, but note that
in *h1r.H-V- the resonant is NOT initial.