Re: [tied] Re: IE prefix "*s"

Richard Wordingham wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" <alxmoeller@...> wrote:
>> The Rom. word "schimba", unlike the Romance examples you gave here
>> cannot derive from *ex-cambiare.
>
> Indeed, for even if [mbj] simply becomes [mb], we should get *scâmba.
>
> Richard.

yeap. there is no /a/ >/i/ , no way. Of course one can assume
unregularities in Romance but there is no need for a such assumtion
since it seems in Balkan the PIE *(s)kemb- was more spreaded (see
Greek, Albanian, Romanian) as in Gallic where the word was *(s)kamb-.
Miguel is ready to see these irregularities in Latin with some spasmotic
changes , but how I said, there is no need since the word derives very
nice from (s)kemb- with /e/ > /i/ before /mC/

Miguzel added:

> *excambiare should give *scâmbia. Subsequently, probably due to the
> same metathesis that we have in *abia > aiba, we got *scâimbá >
> schimbá.
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...
>

There is no metathesis here, see "sã ai" where we already have the "ai"
like in "tu ai" too. You know the difficulties of the verb " a avea" for
allowing it to be derived from Latin habbere, you don't need me to
remember you about it.


Alex