[SPAM] [tied] Re: Latin /a/ after labials, IE *mori

From: alexandru_mg3
Message: 63974
Date: 2009-05-31

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:

-----------------------------------------------------------

> And *mon-éje- is an etymology that you can skip?




Yes I'm obliged to skip , because we have mo- > mo- here
and in the same time we have Clear Etymologies showing mo- > ma-
AND THESE ETYMOLOGIES ARE MORE THAN ONE (-> mone:re)

mori > mare
mon- > manus
etc...

So you are obliged too...


-----------------------------------------------------------
> There is no "root *menh2-/*mneh2-".


Did you here about CERH-/CREH- roots?


-----------------------------------------------------------

>We have only *mneh2-, the expected
> usative of which would be *mnoh2-éje- (unattested).
>
> Piotr

Not true.

You have also ignored the root formation here:

The Root formation is the following:

The basic root men- Was Extended in -h2 to men-h2- > menh2-

From where monh2-eye < mone:re is OK, I don't need an attestation in another language once the causative formations R(o)-éye are well attested and if this explain mo- > mo- in Latin indicating also a perfect semantism 'to mention' > 'to warn'.

Next mneh2- is next a secondary full grade root of [via menh2- > mnh2- > mneh2

(Even if you like an inverse process to see mneh2 as an mn-eh2- root is OK too, because we have a CREH-/CERH- root here so mneh2-/menh2- is correct )


I can give you bibliography of similar root formation -> I mean root formation extended with a laryngeal and also bibliography about CREH-/CERH- roots => based on this you will see than *menh2-/*mneh2- assertion is correct.



Next, you have also ignored that 'to think, to be mentally excited' -> 'to warn' is not a semantism that work directly...is quite a poor one

'to mention, to remember' -> 'to warn' is a direct one.

Marius