Re: [tied] Re: Latin barba in disaccord with Grimm's Law?

On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 16:58:54 -0700 (PDT), Sean Whalen
<stlatos@...> wrote:

>
> Check in Section 71.1 for
>
>> >L mare < *mori

There he just gives the PIE reconstruction as *mori. Both
*mori and *mari are possible in principle, but you have to
pick one...

>> Here Celtic points to *mori, Latin to *mari.
>
> Since they're obviously from the same word and
>there's no question o>a sometimes in Latin I'd say
>*mori.

I'd say *mori too, if I had to pick one. Since PIE */a/
where not conditioned by */h2/, */k/, */g/ or */gh/, often
seems to be the result of nasalization of */o/, to me this
looks like a case of sporadic nasalization *ma:ri ~ *mã:ri
(> *mori ~ *mari) already in PIE.

>> >o>a after a rounded or labial C
>> >
>> >L quattuor *(kWe->kWo->kWa->kwa-)
>>
>> That's rather from *kWtwó:r, like Grk. pisures or
>> (West-)Slavic c^Ityre.
>
> Check in Section 389.4 and elsewhere for the
>necessity of *kWé-.

Sihler in that section explicitly acknowledges the
possibility of schwa secundum here.

> There's no such form as *kWtwó:r in PIE; *twor-/tur-
>is original and *-kWé (prefixed to mean "and _") was
>added by false morpheme division (also in "five").

I agree that *-kWe in "five" is probably the familiar *-kWe
"and" (1, 2, 3, 4 _and_ 5). I fail to see what it might be
doing after "3". As long as we're speculating, I would
derive "4" ultimately from *pWetwor- (> *kWetwor-, except in
Germanic). The form *kWtwó:r(h2) is simply the collective
of *kWétwor(-es).

>> >L faber < *dhobhro-s
>>
>> From *dhabhros, cf. Arm. darbin.
>
> In Arm. o>u in some environments, then o>a.

In this environment, it can only continue /a/ (or /@/, but
that doesn't explain Slavic dobr-).

>> >L pars < *porti-s
>>
>> From *pr.Htí-, cf. Skt. pu:rtí-. *port- gives port-
>> as in
>> portare, porta, portus, etc.
>
> I'd say that *pr.tí-s > *porti-s > pars. If
>*pr.Htí- then *pra:ti- in L.

Yes. The form is irregular in any case (perhaps *prh1tí- >
*pr.thí-?). I just don't see how it supports a development
por- > par- in the face of clear and regular forms as
portare, port, portus, etc.

>> >L maneo: *moneye-
>>
>> From *mn.-éh1- "I stay". *mon-éye- gives moneo: "I
>> warn".
>
> I gave examples enough to show that an individual
>form may have either o or a (fo-/faveo:); with the
>sporadic nature of the changes this is no
>counterexample. Also see 100.c for counterarguments
>to your derivation and n.>an, etc.

The discussion there is about possible cases of /n./ > /an/
instead of regular /en/. /on/ is not an option.


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