Re: [tied] Dissimilation of gW/kWVw to gVw/kVw

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 10:16:10 -0500, Patrick Ryan
<proto-language@...> wrote:

>First, if *gWew- were missing (as it seems to me), that would still be notable, would it not?
>
>But to answer your question directly, Sumerian g~u-4 is "ox"; the circumflex indicates an initial dorsal nasal (/ng/).

But this word doesn't have g~. It's <gud> (or <gu4>).

>A loanword is often supposed from Sumerian into IE (although I believe both had a common origin).
>
>An initial voiced dorsal nasal, regardless of the source, would have been simplified in IE to *g (*gW is an unrelated phenomenon). I can only assume that *gVwVw-, under the influence of the stress-accent, became *gwVw- (zero-grade).

But it can't be gwow- (which would have given Skt. gv-,
Slav. gv-, Balt gv-) nor *g^wow- (which would have given
Skt. jv-, Slav zv-, Balt (Lith.) z^v-).


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...