--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
wrote:
> On 05-03-22 15:07, elmeras2000 wrote:
>
> > That is exactly the point. How did you decide? Can you point to
an
> > example of a word with a retained long vowel before /mn/ from *-
gWn-
> > in Greek? I can't find any pertinent material one way or the
other.
>
> We have examples of unshortened vowels before /gn/ < *-g(^)n- and
before
> /mn/ < *-mn-. In principle, there is no shortening if the cluster
in
> question would have been permitted word-initially in (pre-)Greek,
which
> is true of /Kn/ clusters as a class, rare as individual cases may
be.
> Osthoff's Law prevents the formation of a superheavy syllable, but
there
> is no such danger if both consonants can be syllabified with the
> following vowel.
I do not want to make an unnecessary fuss over unimportant things,
but if a rule comes to be based on a single example it is very
important that that example is above suspicion. What you say is true
about the general understanding of Osthoff's Law. But even that is
not enough here, for we are dealing with a marginal subsection of
the potential evidence for the rule. Now, for both laws, Winter's
and Osthoff's, we are now discussing how broadly the rules are to be
applied. Many laws have restrictions on the edges, and we just do
not know if there are any in these laws until the matter has been
properly checked.
Another thing that arouses suspicion is of course the unsettled
character of the labiovelar: was it aspirated *gWh or unaspirated
*gW ? Surely Winter's lengthening cannot have been provoked by an
aspirate, and therefore it is implicitly assumed that the consonant
was unaspirated in the relevant prestage of Slavic. The Germanic and
Celtic evidence rather points to an aspirate, while Greek and Italic
(Umb. habina with unclear h-) clearly demand an unaspirated stop.
The meaning of the word is also such that one is reminded of the
many funny forms of the words for 'goat'. So, if Lat. haedus can be
taken to be not of PIE age, must agnus be?
I know it comes close to cheating if one just disqualifies whatever
evidence one cannot use to make an idea work. Now, I'd accept any
idea that could work for the entire evidence. I think we are still
waiting, at least for the final proof .
Jens