On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 11:02:48 +0100 (CET), Mate Kapović
<
mkapovic@...> wrote:
I had to put Marién in bath/bed, so in a hurry I forgot to
mention a few things...
>On Čet, veljača 15, 2007 12:55 am, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal reče:
>> As shown by Arm. (a-) and Grk. (o-, e-), the word started
>> with a laryngeal. Since Greek o- may be the result of Umlaut
>> (enoma > onoma), e- has more chances of being original, and
>> therefore the laryngeal was */h1/-
>
>The logic of this completely eludes me. Since Greek o- *may* be secondary,
>it *is* secondary? Come on... And you completely ignore Armenian.
I didn't ignore Armenian. As I said, Arm. a- shows there
was a laryngeal here. But Armenian doesn't say anything
about the colour of the laryngeal.
I said:
"Grk. o- can be explained as from *h3- or as from *h1- with
e- assimilated to the following /o/. Grk e- can only be
explained as coming from *h1-. Therefore, *h1- has more
chances of being original."
I forgot to add:
, especially because *h1- > o- before a following /o/
appears to be regular in Greek (e.g. *h1dónt > odont-
"tooth").
Come to think of it:
I did not mention the Greek variants with /u/ in my earlier
discussion. I don't think that Cowgill's law (in Sihler's
formulation: "*o from any source > u in Greek between a
labial and a resonant") can be true. If it were, we would
be discussing murphology and phunology here. I think the law
certainly applies to *o < **u: (*nu:kWts ~ *nókWts > núx,
*h3nu:ghWs ~ *h3nóghWs > ónux, *nu:gW-nó- ~ *nogW-nó- >
gumnós). If so, <énuma> and <(a)nó:numos> are indeed hard
to explain with *h3. We know that *uh3 would have given *wo:
(*h1núh3mn. > *enFo:ma), but the details of how and when
pre-PIE */u:/ gave /u/ instead of /o/ in Greek, and how an
original */u:h3/ would have developed in the light of the
Francis/Normier law (Rh3 > Ro:) must remain obscure.
>> Umbrian <nome>
>> (*/o:/ > /u:/ in Oscan and Umbrian), assuming it's from a
>> late inscription in the Roman alphabet (the old Umbrian
>> alphabet had no /o/)
Correction: "no <o>".
>There is one more piece of evidence which might point to the laryngeal.
>MAS reconstructs Slavic *j6`meN as a. p. a. They presume that this was a
>special development of nasalized jer (*-nH- > *-n:- > *-6´´N- > -6`-?). A.
>p. a is reconstructed basically on the ground of evidence of Middle
>Bulgarian but there is also Croatian data which may point to that
>conclusion as well. Another example similar to this would be there *j6go
>which is also a. p. a according to MAS (cf. Lith. ju`ngas). This is
>definitely an option worth considering but I'm not entirely convinced.
As you know, Tijmen Pronk discussed jImeN at IWoBA 2 in
Copenhagen. I've found the handout now. On the whole, I
would tend to support (with him) an interpretation as a.p. c
(ORuss. pó imeni, Slov. imę^ < i``meN), which makes the
Slavic evidence inconclusive as far as *n. versus *n.h3 is
concerned. Which is why I didn't mention it in my initial
discussion.
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
miguelc@...