Re: Km > gn

From: stlatos
Message: 51854
Date: 2008-01-24

--- In, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
> On 2008-01-22 10:08, stlatos wrote:
> > There are "corresponding" -no- nouns to some of them; that's part of
> > my point (see previous).
> Such *-no- nouns would not have been formed to *-men- abstracts but
> directly to the verb roots (as substabtivised deverbal adjectives).

I do not believe any nouns in -mo- or -no- are derived from *-mn, or
anything similar. This argument of mine is not about -no- of PIE
origin, but of a sound change of m>n. after velar stops in Latin (and
sim. in other IE branches).

This one word COULD be -no- in PIE also, but it's hard to believe
that for all I mentioned when some have direct cognates with -mo-.
The complete absence seen in L must be from either a sound change or a
targeted elimination not affecting those from other roots not ending
in K. I know which linguistic theory favors, and similar changes in
other branches are confirmation.

> One characteristic formal difference
> between the "signum" type and the "ogmos" type is the vowel grade, but
> there are also semantic differences, *sek-no- retaining its
> quasi-participial meaning 'scored mark' and *h2óg^-mo- meaning 'related
> to *h2ag^mn. [motion, passage]', hence e.g. track, furrow, career'
> rather than 'something driven'.

There are e-mo- and e-mon- words, too. To keep to the common o-mo:
What about G dei~gma and PIE *doikYmos > Goth taikns?

What would one who sees a relation between o-no & o-mo say about
this word with no labial? Wouldn't a post-PIE m>n. rule help even
this theory independent of my criticisms of it?

In truth my proposed sound changes in IE and all the rules
supposedly of PIE time we've discussed before are completely
independent. You have been treating this as if the fact of -mn >>
-mo/no- is certain and necessary in evaluating the sound change, which
should in fact be evaluated separately (and it could tie into the
evidence for the proposed PIE change itself).

Though I've given counterexamples to the conditions proposed for
unity of -tro/tlo- and -mo/no- with ev. from separate IE branches
there is no counterexample for my sound changes; in fact *pugma:x is
just one more correspondence for one and against the other.