Re: ab o:uo:

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

> The vrddhi theory is difficult to accept: first, the long *o: is

odd

> (one would expect *h2e:w- [h2a:w] + *-jo-);

Odd if we don't suppose prolongated o-grade here: *h2owi- >
*h2o:ujom. Of course such an ad hoc reconstruction (which just have
come into my mind) is not very reliable, but are there any formal
reasons to reject it?

> secondly, after an
> originally heavy syllable *-jo- should be realised phonetically as

*-i

> [j]o-.

But Sievers' law has many unexplainable exceptions and can be more or
less reliably ascribed to Germanic only while the latter doesn't
point to a heavy syllable in its *ajja-.

> But perhaps the word is an old compound with
> adverbial *Ho- 'near, by', namely *Ho-h2ewi-o-m [*Hoh2aujom] >
> *oaujom > *o:ujom.

Very interesting. Would you comment on this *Ho-pattern in PIE? What
was the typical usage, how often has it been used? Do *h1o-ti 'over'
or (rather xor) *h3e-bHi 'towards' belong here?

>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-).
>

Do you mean our local Lithuanian chicken and their Indo-Iranian
cognates by *h2wei-? But what is _direct_ evidence for this form
(especially its *h2-)? It looks like put into existance merely by
systemic reasons.

Sergei