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

On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:03:38 -0000, "alexandru_mg3"
<alexandru_mg3@...> wrote:

>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3" <alexandru_mg3@...>
>wrote:
>>
>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@> wrote:
>> >
>> > On 2007-03-14 13:26, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>> >
>> > > As I know Piotr, Sanskrit n. > a see *h2nh2-ti >
>a:ti 'aquatic
>> bird'
>> > > I don't see the vocalisation of n. in your example...
>> >
>> > The prevocalic development was different: *n.HV > *n.nV > Indic
>> anV, cf.
>> > *tn.h2ú- > tanú- 'thin'. Similarly, *r. and *l normally give Skt
>> r., but
>> > *r.HV/*l.HV > irV (or urV in labial environments), cf. *pl.h1ú- >
>> purú-
>> > (Av. pouru-, Gk. polú-).
>> >
>> > Piotr
>> >
>>
>>
>> Piotr, you try to tell me that the output of Skt n. is either a or
>an?

Not here. The PIE form *h2n.h1-ént- ws pronounced roughly
[xn.-hént]. When the laryngeals dropped in pre-Vedic, that
became /n.-ánt/, pronouned [n.-nánt] with an automatic glide
between the syllabic resonant and the following vowel (cf.
i[y]ánt, u[w]ánt, etc.). The /n./ then became /a/ regulary,
giving attested /a-nánt/.

Note that if the initial laryngeal had been vocalized
--instead of lost--, we would have gotten Skt. *&nánt >
*inánt.

>> This is not true: the output of the Skt. n.,m. is Only a

Except of course in the acc.sg., where it is -am.


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
miguelc@...