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

--- Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:

> 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.

That's all I said. You said none of the examples I
quoted in the second set were given by Sihler with
*o>a.

> Both
> *mori and *mari are possible in principle, but you
> have to
> pick one...

I know, but in picking *mori he must have o>a there
for some reason. Rereading there's a small note
(46.a) after wo>we describing some (later) wo>wa.
This is the section I remembered and thought he
applied to all labial (velars).

I still stand by this change which explains several
of the otherwise unexplained a's (mare, pateo:, pars,
etc.). Since there are unambiguous cases of o>a by w
(both forms attested) extending it to other labial
sounds makes sense with the problematic cases with a
by m/p/kW/etc.

> >> >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.

He says, "Such vowels are the taditional redoubts of
schwa secundum or reduced grade vowels (124); but an
unexpected vowel in PIE is a poor way to explain an
unexpected vowel in G or L."

It doesn't sound like he's supporting the
possibility but opposing it. The only possible
outcome of *kWt- he mentions is trupháleia with *kWt-

> t- not *pit-.

There are other examples of Greek e>i (and e:>i:) he
doesn't know the answer to (poikílos vs peçalá-,
híppos vs açva-, etc.) that have various possible
answers (such as between a pal. and sonor., by a pal.
and lab.vel. (if h1 = x^), etc.); my own answers don't
matter 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".

One, two and three, four and five. What's wrong
with that?

> 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).

I disagree (kW-, p- to p-, p- in counting seems
better). And why collective instead of neuter?

> >> >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/

What environment? What would *o give?

> >> >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.

Well:

> > 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

Also, vortex/vertex with derounding or not. Saying
some forms don't have the change doesn't disprove a
sporadic change.

In fact, I've noticed in most of the forms KW/P-o>a
only before CR or CV+front (that is, not before
()CV+back which could make this even more regular than
I first thought).

> >> >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/.

Yes; I disagree with n.>an (ans C. before V) so I
gave a place where counterarguments are given (good
examples of n.>en; original form of maneo: uncertain,
analogy with other a-e- verbs; unexplained e>a by
nasal) without restating them.

> /on/ is not an option.

It's not given as an option there; but with *mo>ma a
possibility I wouldn't discount it (and there are
other examples of a causative changing meaning and
vice versa).




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com