--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> On 2007-09-06 23:54, stlatos wrote:
>
> > You seem to assume that the opt. ll is from analogy...
>
> I'd start with something like *bHél-o:n or *bHl-é:n (the latter, with
> the "Lindeman treatment" of the onset, i.e. *bH&le:n, would explain
> Germanic *Bulan- > OE bula, ON boli)
Is it really likely that a supposed & would > u instead of > a in
Germanic? Why do both Greek and Germanic show both ll and l? If not
my explanation, then why the l(l) in the other Greek words? Is l,>li
before n acceptable to you?
There are too many diminutives that show both -lo- and -u- (and
mixing, like s'mas'ru-) to dismiss it without looking for a reason.
*bhelLo+s *bhelu+ explains the varying l(l) (and maybe also *bhl,Lon+
if l>u before another R like with nasals) in Germanic.
Your explanation requires n in all the words, but there are clearly
two different sets, one ending in -on- and used for an animal. Are
you saying those with -ln- are derived from this? It's almost
certainly the other way around ('swollen' >> 'a swollen animal').