From: Arnaud Fournet
Message: 61152
Date: 2008-11-01
----- Original Message -----
From: "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...>
>
> OK. Slowly and distinctly. In those IE branches that lost the laryngeals
> compensatory lengthening took place in the following contexts:
>
> (1) Word-finally, as in *newah2 > *newa:
> (2) Before a consonant, as in *seh1mn. > *se:mn. or *doh3-t > *do:t
>
> In both cases the laryngeal was originally in the same syllable as the
> lengthened consonant. If, however, the laryngeal was followed by a vowel
> or a syllabic consonant, it was syllabified together with it, and its
> loss caused no lengthening of the _preceding_ syllabic segment. I will
> use a comma for syllable boundaries. Thus:
>
> *na,h2us > *na,us (disyllabic scansion of <naus.> in the R.gveda)
> *h2we,h1n.,tos > *we,(h)n.,tos (> Av. va'ata-)
> *gWr.,h3e,ti > *gWr.,(r)e,ti > *gW&,re,ti (> Skt. giranti)
> *su,h1e,ti > *su,(w)e,ti (> Skt. suvati)
> Piotr
>
=============
Thank you, M. Gasiorowski,
Now if we go one step further,
*bhu , H-e/o => hence phu- (short u) in Greek
*k^u , H2-on => hence k^u-o(:)n
In other words,
even though there is no compelling reason in IE data to reconstruct *k^uH2on
"dog",
(this is what you are saying and I agree to some extent)
The elements you provided to _refute_ my idea actually explain that *k^uH2on
is an _acceptable_ pre-form for the "just-necessary" reconstruction
*k^uo(:)n.
*k^uH2on
Not in the same syllable hence
*k^u-on
Dillman mono-syllabic word hence
*k^wo(:)n
I agree with you that *k^uH2-on must be bi-morphemic
I wrote it long ago on the list.
In other words,
there is a "just-necessary" reconstruction *k^uo(:)n coherent with IE data
and a "deep" reconstruction *kuH2o(:)n coherent with macro-comparative data.
Did I miss something in your explanations ?
Don't be afraid to be slow and distinct.
Poor idiotic incompetent amateurs like me understand faster this way.
What other Dillman words are there ?
I add a line of conclusion to say that
I'm grateful for your time and explanations.
Arnaud