Re: xW/w (was: Lithuanian diphthongs)

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

>
> W dniu 2011-06-12 03:07, stlatos pisze:
>
> > wedHd*-xW-n.ó+
> > wed*-xW-n.ó+
> > wed*-w-n.ó+
> > wed*-n.ó+ dis.
> >
> > vEno = dowry OCS;
> >
> > It's the exact type and order of changes that is only possible; the
> > common origin itself is fairly certain as it's needed to explain the dH
> > / d alt. (resp. for V > VV), among others.
>
> Why not +wedIno or +wedUno in Slavic?

Because of this stage:

wed*-w-n.ó+
wed*-n.ó+ dis.

in which dis. of w-w > w-0 occurred. The other pos. I mentioned could include * wed*-w-n.ó+ > * wed*-n.wó+ immediately to avoid an impossible pronunciation (depending on other rules in effect at the time), and then * wed*-n.wó+ > * wed*-n.ó+, though it doesn't seem important.

> And, more importantly, why does
> Greek show no reflex of the laryngeal in <éedna>, etc.?

Because of the whole point of my theory: that xW > w here. G then had the same change as Slav.

> All the 'dowry'
> words (in Balto-Slavic, Greek and Germanic) exhibit only *d, not *dH,

Which would be a problem, since -dH- is expected. My expl. accounts for those, however, there's also OHG widomo, etc.

> and suggest we should start with *h1wed-mo:n/*h1wed-m.n-, *h1wed-no-,
> not etymologically connected with *wedH- 'lead'.

So you are saying the word for 'wedding gift' did not come from 'wed+gift'? I disagree and see no ev. for xY- here, since, as far as I know, the Greek ev. that you could be advocating for it would just be from Hom. with e- or -a- (after an-) due to later emended forms doubling whatever V was left to keep the needed poetic form (such as for '20') from the unknown form by which Greek w- opt. > h- (possibly w- > uw- > huw- > hw- > h- (since all G u- > hu-)).

> The use of both roots
> in connection with marriage could easily lead to their confusion (which
> probably happened in Baltic, but hardly elsewhere).

There is no ev. for this other root. You have chosen to ignore the obvious expl. from meaning in favor of no expl. at all.