--- stlatos <
stlatos@...> wrote:
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski
> > <gpiotr@> wrote:
>
> > > The single example with *m. > *U is "regular"
> and
> > all the
> > > counterexamples are analogical? This gives a new
> > meaning to the notion
> > > of regularity ;-)
> I've found more evidence in the treatment of soN-
> / sU-. Before a
> vowel or KW in the next syllable *sum- > *suw- >
> sU-.
>
> *xnY,gYh+ > sUvENzati
>
> *gWhub+ > sUgUnoNti
Of course, this seems to leave open the question of
why PIE *sm- 'one, together' vs *dwi- 'two, apart' (in
a more traditional reconstruction) would > *sum- in
Slavic to begin following the rules I gave.
Since I've already said I believe PIE *f existed, I
must give further information about my reconstruction:
f(e)mY 'one (n)'
f(e)mYps 'one (m)'
fmYí:x 'one (f)'
If so PIE had a full set of plain and palatalized
labials.
In Slavic (and Baltic) C, > uC after plain labials
and > iC after palatalized labials (but X, > u or i;
unless VX > VV earlier and VX > V after).
In Greek mY, > e+Nasal before e/a/o+N merged in most
dia., so *fmY,+ > he/ha+. Also, *x(a)NWgWhís 'snake'
> *NW,kWhis or *NY,kYhis (in dia. in which KW>KY
before some front V) > óphis or ékhis.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Need Mail bonding?
Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396546091