Re: Res: [tied] Etymology of Rome - h1romh-eh2 again

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3" <alexandru_mg3@...>
wrote:

> 1. Richard, Miguel, himself, accepted that m will move in the next
> syllable ro.ma ==> He said only that o would remain short.
> I think that 'I demonstrated' that this assumption is false : *od.wos >
> < Grk. o:.dos)
>
> 2. So "it's Only you" that think that m-should remain in the first
> syllable...But before to make such assertion, you will need
> to give a PIE example of VC.V (based on the Old Greek or Sanskrit)

No, for om.V would be post-PIE. However, I did not claim that
resyllabification would not occur, merely that it was not inevitable,
at least in the short term.

> More than this, based on the fact that there is "NO ROOT IN PIE TO
> START WITH A VOWEL" for sure we have "in PIE Always an ONSET in the
> first syllable",

I think that is actually a supposition. What is the evidence for it?

> and I suspect that it could well be the case
> everywhere....(I didn't check anything, it's only a speculation)

I'm not sure what you are suggesting here. One might think that
Classical Arabic was an example of a language with mandatory onsets,
but it isn't. There are a few lexical items and inflected forms that
start with an inital vowel lacking an initial stop. (_ibn-_ 'son' and
_ism-_ 'name' come to mind.)

> I think that we could start a debate if PIE was a "Strictly Onset
> Language" or not.

> 3. Even for your English example (but this is not directly linked to
> the topic, despite your efforts), N in /singer/ siN.&(r) it hasn't a
> Coda-Role, so it's not a good example, it's only 'a trick'...

So what is your analysis of the syllables of this word?

> Please also to try to find an English VC.V example with m please as is
> the case for m in Rome :)(or at least one with a 'true coda')
>
> Here is my help for you:
> amour /&.mur/
> amaze /&.ma:z/
> amount /&.maunt/
>
> It's clear enough? V.CV

Here are some pronunciations given in a book I had as a child:

Allosaurus: AL-lo-sawr-us
Ammonites: AM-mon-ites
amphibian: am-FIB-EE-AN
Ankylosaurus: an-KYLE-o-sawr-us
Archaeopteryx: ark-y-OP-ter-iks
Archelon: AR-kel-on
Birkenia: bir-KEEN-y-a
Brachiosaurus: BRAKE-ee-o-sawr-us
Brontosaurus: BRON-to-sawr-us

At the very least it demonstrates that syllabification using the onset
principle is not a major principle in conveying the pronnication of
English words. (Similarly, syllable boundaries play a minor role in
English hyphenation rules.)

Notice that the <a> in <amount>, <amaze> and <amount> is unstressed.

So, for some VC.V examples with /m/, try:

amateur /"æm.&.tS&/
hammer /"hæm.&/
emery /"em.&.ri/

Now you might try arguing that the /m/ belongs to both syllables, but
it is not a geminate in the way that <penknife> /pen.naif/ has a
double consonant.

If you try to analyse <singer> /"siN.&/ as having a geminate, you then
have to explain why English speakers have great difficulty with /N/ as
a word initial consonant. Certainly a syllabification /"si.N&/
predicts a lack of difficulty. Indeed, one former(?) native
English-speaking member of this list did syllabify the word /"si.N&/ -
and he had no difficulty with initial /N/ in foreign words.

Richard.