Re: Res: [tied] Etymology of Rome - h1rh1-em-/h1rh1-o:m-

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:

>
> On 2007-03-13 20:21, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
> > Hu:ma:nus (with a long-vowel) < *dHg^H-o:m-h3n-? versus
>
> It won't work, given the regular changes in Latin.
>
> > Homo: < *dHg^H-m-mo-,
> > Humus < *dHg^H-om-o- ...
>
> In my opinion, homo (older hemo) < *(D)g^Hm.-h3o:n (the 'earth'

word

> plus the Hoffmann element). The initial dental (*dH or *d) was

regularly

> lost in the zero grade, even if the nasal was syllabic. If one

derived a

> thematic adjective directly from *g^Hm.h3on- --> *g^Hm.h3n-o- >
> *xma:no-, the expected Latin form would be *(h?)ma:nus (there are

no

> independent examples of *xm-). The unexpected long *u: of

<hu:ma:nus>

> was discussed here in August/September 2004 (with some suggestions

but

> no firm conclusion).
>
> > Viewing this we would have similar to : dHg^H-em- / dHg^H-o:m-
> >
> > Ro:mulus (*h1rh1-o:m-) (with a long vowel) versus Remus

(*h1rh1-em-)

>
> The long *o: of *Dg^Ho:m is regular in a consonantal stem

(*Dg^Hó:m,

> loc. *Dg^Hem, gen. *g^Hm-ós). Neither Ro:ma nor Ro:mulus are stems

of

> this kind. Worse still, in the sequence *h1rh1V- the *r would have

been

> syllabic, eventually yielding *&rV- > arV- after the loss of the
> laryngeals in the lineage of Latin.
>
> Piotr
>

I will start with the 'worst thing': No. Piotr, you are not right.

The (H)RHV- roots are ones of the most problematic PIE roots:

Whenever we find an initial syllabic-resonant this is due to the
presence of an (additional) obstruent :
a) the Skt. h2nh2-ti n. is vocalized, but not (only) not due to
h2-h2 context but mainly due to the presence of the obstruent -t-
b) same in ja:mi < *g^nh1-mi

In other contexts (&IE-Languages) we have a laryngeal-methathesis
(considered possible to appears only in u,i-contexts)
c) Russian nyt 'ache' is based on laryngeal metathesis *nHu > *nuH-
'This final output' indicates us that the vocalisation of the
resonant didn't took place (yet) when the metathesis of the laryngeal
has appeared => so it didn't took place at all.

For the (H)RHV-sequences (initial position) the outputs are:
a) the H is simply lost
b) the laryngeal H will be subject of the laryngeal-metathesis

If you know some contra-examples please post them here...

Thanks,
Marius