From: Sean Whalen
> On 2007-06-08 22:43, Sean Whalen wrote:You said that when the alternations in *-trom became
> > If there had been a stage where -ulum became the
> > analogical ending, why not *trahulo+?
> <traha, trahae> is actually attested in the same
> sense as <tragula>
> ('sledge'). The /u/ in <-ulum> is anaptyctic, just
> as in <-culum> and
> <-bulum>. There was a stage where the truncated
> suffix -lo- was added
> directly to the verb stem, yielding *-G-lom > *-glom
> > -gulum.
> --- Jens Elmegård Rasmussen <elme@...> wrote:it
> > A very old theory put forward by Alois Walde has
> > that there is abehaving
> > Grassmann-type dissimilation in Latin if a liquid
> > intervenes. That
> > takes care of examples like barba, glaber, gradior
> > and a few others I
> > don't remember at the moment.
> It doesn't seem necessary to me. Partially the
> problem comes from initial *(ghR, g^hR, gWhR)
> differently from each other. Deaspiration of someCh
> next to a sonorant or glide is already needed forThe change of gh>g must be without intermediates (x,
> NgH>Ng etc.
> ghR>gR initially
> dhR>dR initially
> C > -palatalized
> aspirate > -voice
> aspirate-voice > fricative
> h>0 before sonorant
> *g^hreu- > ruo: (and *en- > ingruo:)
> *g^hreud- > ru:dus
> *g^hroH3wo- > ra:vus
> *gWhrendh- > frendo:
> *ghladhro- > glaber
> *ghredh- > gradior (a < ana. with *dhragh-)
> *dhragh- > traho:
> --- Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:makes it likely tragula is perfectly regular:
> > On 2007-03-14 04:23, Sean Whalen wrote:
> > > PIE *ghdo:m > Pre-Latin *hu:m and then an
> > adjective
> > > was formed from the generalized nominative just
> > > *bho:r > fu:r >> fu:rti:vus.
> > cluster to *g^H- (> Lat. h-) was regular. <humus>,
> > on the other hand,
> > seems to reflect the weak stem *g^Hm.-.
> Given other rules in Latin it seems likely that:
> ghdó:m ... -ó:m
> hu:m ... -o:m or -u:m if not only in mono.?
> hu:m ... -o:m (analogy in o-stems)?
> hu:m ... -o:m (hu:ma:nus formed < hu:m)
> hum .... -om
> hum .... -um
> humus .... -um (irreg. noun > o-stem)
> I know that not everyone believes in the
> of *-ó:m > -um but it seems fine to me (considering
> that both preceding and following C can affect V
> changes in Latin).
> > Looks like an excellent idea to me, though it's
> > to be sure what the
> > "regular" development of prevocalic *d(H)g^H- in
> > Latin would have been.
> > If Lat. sitis < *dHgWHi-ti-, one would expect
> > (!). However, in
> I think K and KW/KY developed differently in these
> ksóm ghdó:m gWhdiitís kYtiitús
> ks.óm ghd.ó:m gWhd.iitís kYt.iitús
> ks.óm ghz.ó:m gWhz.iitís kYs.iitús
> ks.óm ghz.ó:m z.iitís s.iitús
> ks.óm ghz.ó:m z.itís s.itús
> kóm ghó:m z.itís s.itús
> kóm ghó:m s.itís s.itús
> cum hum-us sitis situs
> So plain velar + obstruent > velar stop > etc
> round/pal. velar + obstruent > dental fricative
> KW/KY are deleted before new s. in an onset as an
> extension of the rule that retroflex sounds had no
> round or pal. allophones.
> > Not always:What does it matter how often? All the l-r could
> > *bhertlos > ferculum 'bier'
> > *tlaxtlos > tabula 'board'
> Admittedly not always, but often enough to be
> significant: <mulctrum,
> ara:trum, claustra, terebra, pollu:brum> etc. vs.
> <su:bula, poculum,
> fa:bula, stabulum> etc. There is no trace such an
> alternation in