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

On 2007-03-14 22:34, alexandru_mg3 wrote:

> Based on what examples and based on what reasons you asserted HR.H
> in PIE?
>
> When a _non_syllabic_ HRH is a good candidate too for that outputs
>
> This was my question from the beginning....

Based on examples such as *h2n.h1ént > Skt. anánt (rather than *nant or
*inant) and *h1uh2ái > Skt. uvé (rather than *vé or *ivé).

> II. Let's suppose now (for the argumentation) a vocalic HR.H in
> PIE
> Next viewing that:
> 1) is vocalised later in branch-specific ways
> but in Addition not only this BUT
> 2) is vocalised in many specific contextual ways (see Skt.
> different outputs for CRC, CRHV-, -VRC/# etc..) (=> so many
> contextual ways, if you compare with other PIE phonems, that this
> really put in question you supposed PIE _syllabicity_ for some
> contexts, but doesn't matter for the case II.)
>
> So viewing 1 and 2
> Based on what you put together and deduce the "same output" for
> Latins RRHV CRHV CRRV versus Latin HRHV? This was your assumption
> (not mine) so you need to sustain it as well.

Why "versus"? In absence of evidence to the contrary, I assume that the
development of *HRHV- in Latin would have been the same as the
development of *CRHV- (with the same syllable structure). This is what I
see in other branches (see the Sanskrit examples above). I'll try to
find an independent Latin example, but it may be difficult, since the
sequence *HRHV- is pretty rare.

Piotr