--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3" <alexandru_mg3@>
> wrote:
>
> > "BUT next the lost of the laryngeal trigerred the change of the
> > syllable structures too" is True.
>
> No. There are no examples of such a change anywhere in IE. The Greek
> change you quoted shows only that compensatory lengthening via
> resyllabification is POSSIBLE, not that it's INEVITABLE.
Correct, but it's what I wanted to show:
1. Miguel rejected 'my etymology' based on the assertion that 'the
compensatory lengthening via resyllabification is IMPOSSIBLE
2. Now showing that 'the compensatory lengthening via
resyllabification is POSSIBLE', I rejected 'his rejection'...
3. and I still sustain my etymology as : 'A POSSIBLE ONE'
> Greek has
> many words derived from *CVRH-V-, and not a single one of them shows a
> lengthened reflex of the root vowel. Cf. bora:, tome:, tómos <
> *gWorh3-áh2, *tomh1-áh2, *tómh1-o-s, etc. Nor is such a lengthening
> attested in Latin, cf. genus < *g^énh1-os, -vorus < *gWorh3-ó-, domus
> < *dómh2-o-, etc.
>
1. I'm aware that the compensatory lengthening by resyllabification,
didn't happen in all the contexts: but it happened in some particular
ones...(and seems to be a rare case...), and I'm not able to identify
yet any rule...
2. BUT I also think that Ro:mulus is the o-ablaut of Remus
*h1romh-u-lo-s
*h1remh-u-s
(the division above are not by syllables, I isolated the root, etc...)
But I couldn't find yet an explanation: why the lenghthening could
happen in the first case and not in the second one.
Of course, you can say that the supposition that 'Remus&Romulus are
from the same root' is completely false, but not to can link Romulus
with Remus to the same root viewing the e/o ablaut inside: would be
strange for me....
Marius