Re: sanskrit "bhuman"

From: Richard Wordingham
Message: 16124
Date: 2002-10-10

--- In cybalist@..., "m_iacomi" <m_iacomi@...> wrote:
> --- In cybalist@..., alexmoeller@... wrote:

> You may say anithing starting with "no" and Alex will read is
> as "yes", supporting its' theory (or Vinereanu's).

And talking of bHu:man **> pãmînt:

> Of course, nobody but Vinereanu supports this word derivation.

Are you suggesting that Alex is indeed a deranged program and not a
person? :)

> Phonetically, the Logudorese "pamentu" proves there is no problem
> of derivation: a vernacular late Latin form "*paumentu(m)" should
> be the "missing link" (see also M.L. Wagner: Historische Lautlehre
> des Sardischen: "$33 - Vortoniges [au] wird wie betontes ($37) zu
> [a]: [...] pamEntu, log., pomEntu, camp. (mit Velarisierung durch
> die Labialen, $37) = *paumentum [...]"). Unstressed /e/ > /&/ (<ã>)
> and stressed /e/ before /n/ (or /m/) > /1/ (<â>) are regular in
> Romanian.

Do you need a preceding labial (e.g. the /m/ we have) to get /1/ and
not /i/? I am thinking of dinte < dentem and 'CinV > C1nV if C
labial', as Miguel cited in .