Re: [tied] I'm back with a few questions

>
>*wemh1-o: > *wemo: > vomo: is regular (*e > o after *w or *l if followed
>by a nasal plus a back vowel) and generalised across the paradigm.

I know of this change (e.g. homo), but why would *wemo: be generalized across the paradigm?  What's the likelihood of someone saying "I'm vomiting" (isn't this physically impossible) or "I vomit" (all the time)?  Isn't it more likely that the form of this verb would be based on the 3rd person sg. form *wemHeti (or *wemHti)?  Wouldn't this become Latin vemit?  Or perhaps vomere is based on a perfect or aorist form. 

 <sona:re> and
><tona:re> (sic!) are Class I verbs, probably denominative (cf. <tonus>,
><sonus>).

But what is the explanation of tonere? Is it influenced by the noun tonus or the denominative verb tonare?

Our list-member Jens Rasmussen believes that
>Jasanoff's theory of o-presents is a monumental mistake and that the
>o-type goes back to de-reduplicated intensive stems of the type
>*m(e)lh2-molh2-. The debate will surely continue for a long time.

I can buy this idea, considering the nature of the action of "grinding".

By the way, I noticed that no one offered an explanation of Germanic class VI and VII verbs.  I imagine it's already been talked about in this forum.  Can someone let me know whether I should (bother to) search the archives or not?  Also, are there essays or other works on this subject that anyone knows of?

Andrew

>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/
>
>
>
>