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

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

>
> On 2007-03-14 04:23, Sean Whalen wrote:
>
> > PIE *ghdo:m > Pre-Latin *hu:m and then an adjective
> > was formed from the generalized nominative just as
> > *bho:r > fu:r >> fu:rti:vus.
>
> Looks like an excellent idea to me, though it's hard to be sure

what the

> "regular" development of prevocalic *d(H)g^H- in Latin would have

been.

> If Lat. sitis < *dHgWHi-ti-, one would expect *su:m (!). However,

in

> such a messy paradigm the initial consonant would probably have

been

> levelled out from the weak cases, where the simplification of the
> cluster to *g^H- (> Lat. h-) was regular. <humus>, on the other

hand,

> seems to reflect the weak stem *g^Hm.-. It follows that <hu:ma:nus>

is

> not based on <homo> but directly on the 'earth' word, which of

course is

> fine semantically.
>
> Piotr
>

So Piotr, I understand that now you agree with my ideea

PIE dHg^H-o:m- > Latin *hu:m-(a:nus)?


Initially you have said that such a derivation is not possible ...

Marius

P.S. : I will come back on m-h3n- proposal also...