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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3" <alexandru_mg3@...>
wrote:

>
> --- 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
>

This time, this coudl be the right solution Piotr, so I will not give
up so quickly:

To resume:

'Doesn't matter' the model in the initial phase...

We have:
Lat. sa:l versus Lat. Acc. salem
on one hand,
But
Lat. na:ris versus Lat. Acc. na:rem

These are facts.

Now you need to explain:
why a:/a (in sa:l/salem) versus a:/a: (in na:ris/na:rem)?


You are free to choose what model you want...but you need to well
argue here...

On my side I explain the long a: in na:rem based on:

PIE *HRHV- > Pre-Latin *HRVH > Latin RV:


Marius