From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 37259
Date: 2005-04-19
----- Original Message -----From: Miguel CarrasquerSent: Monday, April 18, 2005 6:45 PMSubject: 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@...
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
What would our lives be like without music, dance, and theater?
Donate or volunteer in the arts today at Network for Good!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/TzSHvD/SOnJAA/79vVAA/GP4qlB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
cybalist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/