Re: Morimarusa

At 7:28:39 PM on Sunday, February 7, 2010, stlatos wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> <BMScott@...> wrote:

>> At 6:08:25 PM on Friday, February 5, 2010, stlatos wrote:

>> [...]

>>> I showed five changes; one of which ( r > ar ) is known to
>>> all, and one of which ( t. > s. ) is needed to change *
>>> mr.twos > * mar.s.wos > * mar.wos in most types of Celtic

>> Strictly speaking, it isn't needed: Celtic need only have
>> remodelled *mr.to- on *gWihwos 'alive'.

> I don't understand what you mean.

Perfectly straightforward verbal shorthand: in the course of
the development of PCelt. from PIE, the 'dead' word could
have been remodelled on the 'alive' word (which becomes
PCelt. *biwo-).

> If there was remodelling of *mr,to- by *gWih3wo-, it would
> have been in PIE, with the result *mr,two-.

*mr-wo-, actually.

> Since *mr,two- is the known source of many IE words for
> 'dead', why should the Celtic be different?

*mr-two- is irregular in the first place, and
straightforward remodelling is certainly preferable to your
alphabet soup.

>>> Also, how extensive are these "mere orthographic
>>> variations" supposed to be? For Belatucadros \
>>> Balatucadrus \ Blatucadrus \ Balatocadrus \ Belatucairus
>>> \ Balatucairus \ Blatucairus \ Belleticaurus \
>>> Baliticaurus \ Balaticaurus \ Belatugagus in Britain,
>>> how does -d- vary with -i-?

>> Possibly in the same way that Lat. <cathedra> became OW
>> <cateir> by vocalization of the /d/ before /r/.


> As far as I remember, the disappearance of -d- lengthened
> the -e- > -e:- with no intermediate form with -i-.

See Jackson, LHEB, 429-31. It's parallel to -gr- > -yr-.

[...]

Brian