From: Andrew Jarrette
Message: 63947
Date: 2009-05-28
>Why <moni:le> "necklace"?
> --- 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-�je/o-? Why mora < *(s)mor-ah2?
> > OTOH, a reduced-grade /a/ (or a Lindeman treatment of initial *mn-) can
> > occur in *maneo: < *m(&)n-�h1-.
>
>
> A) mane:re falls in the rule above so we regularly have:
>
> 1. *mon-�h1- > 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-�ye 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-�h1- > mane:re 'stay, remain'
> 2. *mon-�ye- > *mane:re (again) 'to warn' > mone:re 'to warn'