Re: *pYerkW+

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr G±siorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:

>
> alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
> > Ok. But the PIE word was a u-stem or was ended in *-w-o-?
>
> The word is ONLY Slavic and Germanic, so the question is

unanswerable.

> The available evidence doesn't guarantee the PIE age of the word.
>
> > Also what was the original genitive form?
>
> I can only say that Szereményi's rule predicts *bH(o)rw-ós. This,
> however, is not what we find in Slavic, where the distinction

between

> the two types of oblique stems has been abandoned for i- and u-

nouns and

> where we only find reflexes of gen.sg. *-éi-s and *-óu-s,

respectively.

> Even Vedic has some analogical variant forms, so that e.g. the

gen.sg.

> of <madHu> is <madHvah.> OR <madHoh.> OR <madHunah.>. In Slavic the
> gen.sg. of *medU < *medH-u is always *medu, as if < *medH-ou-s.
>
> Piotr
>

Another Slavic Germanic word is:

*kwors-to > Proto-Slavic *kwarsta > OCS *xvrastU 'osier', Russian
xvorost 'brushwood'

*kwors-to > Proto-Germanic *kwarsta > OE *hyrst 'bush'

What is the PIE genitive form here?

Thanks again,
Marius

P.S. : On the other hand, you can see that Germanic kw is not kw > xw

> fw > f here as you have supposed for : penkWe > *fimfi etc... : his

output is *h




OE hyrst `bush, thicket' [m]