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

On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 12:03:55 -0700 (PDT), Sean Whalen
<stlatos@...> wrote:

>> >> >> >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 >
>ost.

If I leaf through Birgit Olsen's "The noun in Biblical
Armenian" I can find plenty of examples of Armenian /o/
reflecting PIE /o/ that have nothing to do with labials: gog
< *ghogho-, lok < *logo-, oLj^ < *sol-?, k`os < *kosso-,
k`oLr < *kol-r/n-, t`or.n < *torno-, toRn < *dhorbh-n-, koLr
< gol-r-, gom < *ghos-mn-, etc. Not to mention cases of o >
u before nasal such as cunr< g^onu-.


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