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

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 -----
From: João Simões Lopes Filho

To: cybalist@egroups.com

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- > ?