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

From: Sean Whalen
Message: 45096
Date: 2006-06-24

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

> On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 17:17:41 -0700 (PDT), Sean
> Whalen
> <stlatos@...> wrote:
> >--- 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.
> I said none of them were given as examples of a
> specific
> Latin development o > a.

Specific? In entries describing individual words it
would be necessary for o > a in that environment to
reach the Latin form from the PIE form. I thought
that all these were explained in the section on *o as
wo>we or wa; ow>aw; as well as Po>Pa, KWo>KWa (but
apparently that was from Schrijver). Sihler doesn't
go into how o>a in *twor- > parie:s, *mori > mare, but
I believe this rule can account for these forms and
many others (squalus, qua-, canis; numerous words
beginning with pa- and fa-, etc.).

As in that discussion I linked to on the status of
*a in PIE, it doesn't make much sense to use Latin
examples as part of an argument if they all occur next
to a labial in words without certain connections in
languages where *o and *a are distinct since there are
many other Latin words where *o is definitely
indicated but a appears next to a labial.

> > 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).
> Yes, that's why I thought it strange that you said
> "all
> labials except /w/", mentioning Sihler, while Sihler
> only
> gives a few examples for /w/.

They must take place at different times; unlike
vo/va there are no early attestations of fo-, po- in
those words.

> >> 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?
> We have five fingers.

I have ten, but some are repeats. I understand that
it may not "sound right" in some languages besides
English, but saying "one, two and three, four and
five" doesn't seem odd; it's not only on the final
word of the chant that "and" can appear.

> >> >> >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?
> /o/. E.g. *pork^os > ors, *orbhos > orb, etc.

That rb is from metathesis. There's no reason to
think it's old enough that *o>a hadn't happened yet.
Besides, I disagree with your rule; o is only retained
there because it follows *p and *h3 (or more probably
o>a, later a>o after w/xW/kW/gW happening after
*(p>f>xW) in most locations; h3 = xW).

The same can be seen in *pod- > otn and *h3osdos >

> >> /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).
> But maneo is not a causative. It's a stative
> (essive-fientive) with *-eh1-.

That can't be determined from the Latin form alone;

Av upamanaya- "wait for"
Av ma:naya- "cause to remain"
OP ma:naya- "wait for"

I wouldn't say *moneye- is impossible for maneo:.
There are other possibilities.

Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around