--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> On 2009-05-28 21:02, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
> > The rules are:
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > 1.a mo-CV- > ma-CV- (so in open syllable)
> >
> > mori- > mare
> > mon- > manus
> Why, then, moneo: < *mon-éje/o-? Why mora < *(s)mor-ah2?
> OTOH, a reduced-grade /a/ (or a Lindeman treatment of initial *mn-) can
> occur in *maneo: < *m(&)n-éh1-.
A) mane:re falls in the rule above so we regularly have:
1. *mon-éh1- > mane:re
2. *mori- > mare
3. *mon- > manus
Note: There is no need for m(&)n- m(&)rei- patterns (or mr-i) etc..
BUT In this Context *mon-éye would have been resulted again as *mane:re 'to warn' but Semantically is different from mane:re 'to stay' : so is normal to be retained/restored as an o-causative mone:re
1. *mon-éh1- > mane:re 'stay, remain'
2. *mon-éye- > *mane:re (again) 'to warn' > mone:re 'to warn'
B. mora 'pause, delay' is from the root *merh- so it was *morh-eh2
And in this case, we have a closed syllable here: *mor-heh2
This indicates also that -CHV- > -CV- took place after mo-CV- > ma-CV-
Marius