Re: [tied] PIE *HRHV > Pre-Latin HRVH > Latin RV: (*h1rh1-om-eh2 >

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

>
> On 2007-03-19 04:07, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
> > For the reconstruction with an initial laryngeal of the 'nose'-

root

> > see:
> > (see Lubotsky - Leiden)
> > "IE form: Hn(e)h2s- "
>
> The initial laryngeal is guaranteed by Old Indic data (lengthening

of

> the final vowel of the first member in compounds). I don't believe

in

> such CeHC/CHeC/CHC- ablaut, however. There is no problem whatsoever

if

> one accepts PIE *a and the possibility of *a:/*a (Lubotsky doesn't

but

> many other people do). The word is therefore *Hna:s-/Hnas-.
>

Well the Lithuanian forms point to a laryngeal:
-I'm in a more solid ground that you here...

> > The hint here is Latin *na:rem < Pre-Latin Acc. *hneh2sm < PIE

Acc.

> > *hnh2esm- versus the Lat. Acc. salem < PIE Acc. *sh2elm (for a
> > similar construction)
> >
> > So we have a laryngeal methathesis in this case *HR/*HV > *HR/*VH
> >
> > ===========================================================
> > Rule: PIE *HRHV- > Pre-Latin *HRVH- > Latin RV:
> > ===========================================================
> >
> > So applying the rule above we can derived Ro:ma in a regular way:
> >
> > PIE *h1rh1-om-eh2 > Pre-Latin. *h1roh1m-eh2 > Ro:ma
> >
> > with -om- initially and not with -o:m-
> >
> > (so the second issue 'why -o:m-?' dissapears too)
>
> Even accepting the above paradigm of the 'nose' word for the sake

of the

> argument, it will get you this kind of variation only in a

consonantal stem!

>
> Piotr
>

Based On?

Why only in a consonantal stem?

The cluster HRHV- is big enough not to depend on the final context

Marius