From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 45081
Date: 2006-06-24
>--- Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:I said none of them were given as examples of a specific
>
>> 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.
>> BothYes, that's why I thought it strange that you said "all
>> *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 agree that *-kWe in "five" is probably theWe have five fingers.
>> 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?
>> >> >L faber < *dhobhro-s/o/. E.g. *pork^os > ors, *orbhos > orb, etc.
>> >>
>> >> 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 maneo: *moneye-But maneo is not a causative. It's a stative
>> >>
>> >> 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).