Re: [tied] More on the crummy sanguis/asrk connection

From: João Simões Lopes Filho
Message: 5101
Date: 2000-12-17

I think ngWH > -ngu- cf. lingua.
anser must be a anomalous development of expected *hanser.
maybe
(1) IE *bH-, *dH-, *gH-, *gWH- > Italic *f- *th- *x- *xW- > Italic *f- f- h- f-
(2) IE  *-VbH-, *-VdH-, *-VgH-, *-VgWH- > Italic -VbH-, -VdH- -VgH- VgWH- > Latin -Vb-, -Vd-, Vh-, Vb- (*)
(3) IE *-nbH-  *-ndH- *ngH- , *-ngWh > Italic -nbH-, -ndH- -ngH- ngWH- > Proto -Latin *-mb- *-nd- *-ng- *ngu-
(4) IE *-ibH- *-idH *-igH *-gWH seems to develop like (3)
 
(*) Paralelly occurs the Latin development of dh>b after u and before r. (*Hrudhro- > rubru-)
----- Original Message -----
From: Piotr Gasiorowski
To: cybalist@egroups.com
Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2000 8:29 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] More on the crummy sanguis/asrk connection

But we also have *-gH- > -h- (veho, vehiculum, traho) and *gH- > zero (anser). The change *-igH- > -ig- is also nicely illustrated by *dH(e)igH- > fi(:)g-, though I don't quite understand why *-gH- should have been "hardened" only in this particular environment. Pisani argued that the regular Latin reflex was -g- in all intervocalic position, and that -h-/zero was only found in dialectally influenced words. Perhaps he was right, cf. vegetus < *wegH-eto-.
 
The development of *-gWH- is even more messy, e.g.
 
*gWH- > f- (formus)
*-gWHs > -ks (nix)
*-gWH- > -w- (nivis)
*-ngWH- > -ng- (ningit)
*-gWHr- > -br- (febris)
 
Piotr
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2000 3:13 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] More on the crummy sanguis/asrk connection

Or ve:na < *wegh-sna:-  ?
I've already ever doubts about the various developments of *gH in Latin...
gH- > Italic X- > h-
-gH- > Italic -gh- > -h- > zero
-igH- > -ig   cf. (ve-)stigium
-ngH, -rgH, -lgH > -ng, -rg, -lg
gHr- > gr- or r-?
-gHr- > ?