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

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

> On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 12:02:42 -0700 (PDT), Sean
> Whalen
> <stlatos@...> wrote:
>
> >--- Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
> >
> >> No, I'm saying there is no o > a in Armenian.
>
> What there is in Armenian is a marked tendency to
> favour the
> oblique (weak) stem (cf. for instance barjr <
> *bherg^h- ~
> *bhr.g^h-, etc.):

I think e>o after p/b/bh; for many IE languages.
This is too common for me to accept any other
explanation.

> >aytnum vs oidos- Gk
>
> Greek oideo: has o-grade (causative-iterative), and
> oi~dos
> is an o-grade thematic noun.

No, I checked two sources which have it as a neuter,
just as I thought (*h3eidos).

> The Armenian verb is
> based on
> the e-grade root (or zero-grade) *h2eid- ~ *h2id- (>
> ayt-),
> LIV 258.

I don't believe *h2o remains; instead *h2o > h2a.

> > What about
> >
> >akn vs oculus L
>
> G. *&3kW-mn.(t)-ós (= Grk. ómmatos) => *ak`mánoh
>
> akan
> (with loss of aspiration of k`).

There is voicing assimilation *(kW>gW) before the
stop shifts. I disagree that *h3.kW- or similar is
possible (if a C that can't become syllabic ends a
syllable it never loses the vowel; *Hyestós>zestós,
*medtós>matta-, etc).

Also, since many Armenian words seem to have *n
added to the end I'd prefer *h3okWn. / *h3okWnos >
*-ons to *-men-.

> >ayn vs oino-/e:- Gk
>
> Not sure what the connection is supposed to be. The
> Arm.
> demonstratives ays, ayd, ayn (besides sa, da, na,
> -s, -d, -n
> and soyn, doyn, noyn) consist of the basic elements
> *k^(i),
> *t(o) and *(-)no. The origin of ay- is unclear.

Well, miayn "only" was enough to convince me. Since
words for "one" have various suffixes *(-no-, -ko-,
-wo-) the existence of *h3oi- as a unit seems fine to
me.

Are there any cases of PIE *oi you think made it
into Armenian?

> >atamn vs odont- Gk
>
> Zero grade *&1dn.(t)-mn.t-ós > atamán (G). Cf.

Olsen

> 505.

Some Mycenean forms may indicate *down.t- (I
reconstruct v not w) without original connection to
"eat". Why would h1 appear as a here?

> >garun vs vasara Lith (o>a in Lith)
>
> *wesr > ge(h)ar > gar + -onto- > -un. Olsen 41.

I don't expect you to believe my derivation with the
evidence I've presented so far, but for the record:

wefrn
wofrn
wofrun
wosrun
wasrun
wazrun
wa:run
gWa:run
ga:run
garun

> > I suppose you also would have to say h2 and h3
> merge
> >before h2>a. It's possible by itself, but makes
> some
> >changes strange (assimilation in enuma-/onuma-
> can't
> >account for anun).
>
> *&1noh3mn > anu(w)n (/m/ > /w/ before or after /o:/,
> Olsen
> 132). Or perhaps zero-grade *&nh3mn. (= Slavic
> *inmin >
> jImeN)

Where is this form from?

> with *nh3 > no:, as in Greek.

I don't believe there was h3 in this word.
Metathesis can account for long o: in Latin, etc.



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