--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Piotr Gasiorowski"
<piotr.gasiorowski@...> wrote:
I don't like to compromise the infix theory by basing it on weaker
etymologies than the ones I have used.
>
> Well, I mean something different: the pre-form of *pleh1-mn. (as
in Gk.
> ple:ma) produced *polh1-nó- [...]
There is no need to read a full-grade *pleH1- into Gk. plê:ma which
can reflect *pl.H1-. There are plenty of men-derivatives with
generalized zero-grade in Greek, and the "verkehrte Vollstufe" seems
to have a distinct predilection for "long sonant" roots. That makes
them so suspicious as to be worthless.
> Of course
> <poulu-> also exists as a variant of <polu->, and since an
explanation of
> its existence seems to be lacking, one could speculate that it
resulted from
> mutual contamination between *pouló- and <polú->.
Why can't it just be metrical lengthening?
If boulé: is from *gWolnáH2, based on blê:ma interpreted as *gWléH1-
mn, it is indeed parallel to you guesses about /polló-/, but then I
cannot reconcile it with the rest of my findings, and the whole
basis disappears. However, there is little reason to connect boulé:
with bállo:. I see that LIV posits a root *gWelH3- for boúlomai.
That would still leave the accent as a problem, while the vowel is
in its right place. I do not know if boulé: is a pertinent item at
all. At the very least, its relationship to the verbal stem
*gWolne/o- or *gWolse/o- should be made clear in the process.
Jens