On 2006-09-15 03:36, Sean Whalen wrote:
> It's the exact opposite accentation that changed
> V+tone t n V > V d n V, etc. You have ignored
> * (xukWnós > uxWnaz > auhns, oven, etc) as Gk ipnós.
I'll return to this word later on. It deserves to be treated separately.
> If you think these are unrelated at least there's
> little chance the plain *u would be accented.
Why? There chances might be slim in PIE (though accented nil-grades are
by no means unknown), but we are talking about Proto-Germanic. Pre-VL
accent cannot be established on the basis of vowel quality.
>> *swép-no- (OInd. svápna-) > *swéfna- (GL1)
>
> There is no example of *swépnos in Germanic. ON
> svefja and svefn (a neuter noun) must be from *swop-
> followed by j that fronts a>e (as somnium).
You've managed to pack a lot of nonsense into two sentences while in
"denial mode". OIc. swefn 'sleep, dream' is MASCULINE and so corresponds
exactly, both formally and semantically, to Ved. svápna- (m.) and Lat.
somnus (note also the initial accent in Gk. húpnos). The gender of
strong nouns is variable in Gmc., and it's true that OE swefn is neuter,
but I cited the stem as *swép-no- ignoring the gender variation inside
Germanic. Lat. somnium doesn't prove that the form in question had *o,
since in Latin *swep- gives sop- anyway. For formal reasons OIc. svefn
and OE swefn can't be -io- stems matching Lat. somnium and OInd.
svápnyam (a hypothetical form with the o-grade would have given PGmc.
**swafnija-), but even if they were it would not matter. This derivative
had initial accent as well. To sum up, Germanic does nave a reflex of
*swepno-, and its initial accent is guaranteed by extra-Germanic cognates.
> This
> svefja is probably a regularization of *swo:peye-
> after that became independent in meaning.
It _is_ a regularised variant of the inherited causative (OIc. sø:fa),
but I fail to see its relevance to the issue at hand.
We can discuss further examples if you like.
Piotr