Re: Res: [tied] Etymology of Rome - h1rh1-em-/h1rh1-o:m-
--- In email@example.com
, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
> On 2007-03-14 13:26, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
> > As I know Piotr, Sanskrit n. > a see *h2nh2-ti > a:ti 'aquatic
> > I don't see the vocalisation of n. in your example...
> The prevocalic development was different: *n.HV > *n.nV > Indic
> *tn.h2ú- > tanú- 'thin'. Similarly, *r. and *l normally give Skt
> *r.HV/*l.HV > irV (or urV in labial environments), cf. *pl.h1ú- >
> (Av. pouru-, Gk. polú-).
Piotr, you try to tell me that the output of Skt n. is either a or an?
This is not true: the output of the Skt. n.,m. is Only a
So when you say that the :
"pre-vocalic development was different n.HV > n.nV"
I can agree with you.
But this is Only just 'another way' to explain A Different output
(versus the 'normal' a) and Once You are Defining 2 outputs for the
same Vocalisation Process that initially you presented me as "One and
the Same Process":
you come "closer" to my initial assumption...
So what you say is equivalent 'somehow' with what I'm saying :
"there is NO vocalisation of the resonant in HRHV clusters because I
can see as you can see also that the n is well and safe there"