Re: ab o:uo:

The vrddhi theory is difficult to accept: first, the long *o: is odd
(one would expect *h2e:w- [h2a:w] + *-jo-); secondly, after an
originally heavy syllable *-jo- should be realised phonetically as *-i
[j]o-. To sum up, I'd predict a surface form like *h2a:wijom rather
than *h2o:wjom. But perhaps the word is an old compound with
adverbial *Ho- 'near, by', namely *Ho-h2ewi-o-m [*Hoh2aujom] >
*oaujom > *o:ujom. The anomalous structure of the contracted form
would have triggered various repair strategies in the individual
branches, producing more acceptable shapes like *o:jom, *o:wijom,
*o:wom (by dropping either glide or epenthesising a vowel). Greek o:
(w)eon remains puzzling, perhaps reflecting an alternative form like
*Ho-h2wei-o-m > *o:wejom (the "bird" word was *h2awi-s/*h2wei-).

Piotr

--- In cybalist@..., "Sergejus Tarasovas" <S.Tarasovas@...> wrote:
> Slavic *aje, Germanic *ajja-, Latin o:uum, (Att.) Greek o:Io'n
(Arg.
> pl. o:'bea), Iranian *a:ya- 'egg', Armenian ju are usually thought
to
> continue PIE *o(:)w(y)om, which in turn is explained as vrddhi of
the
> 'bird'-word ('of bird'<'bird') reflexed in Latin auis 'bird'. But
the
> latter rather points to something like *h2ewi- as a proto-form, and
I
> can't see how a least common denominator for *o(:)w(y)om and *h2ewi-

> could be found, taking into account the fact that some branches
> doesn't demonstrate any evidence for *-w-, while others for *-y-,
and
> Germanic doesn't show any vrddhi at all.
>
> Any ideas?
>
> Sergei