[tied] Re: *wogwh-ni ‘ploughshare’

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

>
> On 2007-05-04 20:51, stlatos wrote:

> > There doesn't seem to be any
> > evidence for accented *supnós at all.
>
> True. But *súp-no- (the substantivisation, with contrastive accent, of
> hypothetical *sup-nó-) works directly for Greek, Albanian and Slavic
> without positing any extra sound changes (operating independently in

the

> three branches?).

If any environment could cause assimilatory rounding, it would be
something like w_p. Celtic, Greek, Albanian, and Armenian show many
shared traits so I wouldn't call it "independent". Slavic changes o>u
in other environments. Two unrelated changes in an ideal environment
for rounding seems possible to me.

> > The Toch forms just seem to show metathesis (*swep > *s.op > *s.pa
> > just like *septm, > s.pät (and/or contamination w 'six'?)) in one word
>
> Not simple metathesis but epenthesis plus loss of schwa in an initial
> syllable.

It doesn't seem like epenthesis is necessary if the exact order is
considered below:

> > but not in another (*swepnyo+m > *swopniyo+m + to+ >> *sopniyto+ >
> > *samnitya+).
> >
> > If you are advocating:
> >
> > swepnos
> > sw&pnos
> > sw&p&nos
> > swp&nos
> > sp&nos
> >
> > etc.
> >
> > I'd like to know why 0>& / p_n occurs in one word and not another (or
> > whatever additional rules you propose).
>
> The problem is that old *o can't give TB ä /&/, while swe- yields

PToch.

> *sw'&- reflected as in *swésor- > *s.w'&sër- > TB s.er, TA s.ar (with
> loss of the schwa) or *swér-mn. > *s.w'&rm& > TB s.arm, TA s.urm ~

s.rum

> (note the /s./ in TB s.pane, TZ s.päm.).

I wrote:

> > The Toch forms just seem to show metathesis (*swep > *s.op > *s.pa

> TB sänme- therefore points to
> *s&mnë- < *supno-, though I don't know enough about Tocharian sound
> changes to be able to explain the absence of epenthesis in this case.
> The process was a little capricious, it seems, cf. *weg^H-no- 'way' >
> *w'&knë > TB yakne, TA wkäm.

I believe o can become ä in certain environments, but that isn't a
problem that I need to discuss for this argument. If you don't
believe it I don't need to show rounding of e>o in the first place:

> > swepnos
> > sw&pnos

Therefore, simplifying my derivation since there's no need to argue
about all the additional rules I advocate:

swepnos
sw&pnos
s.w&pnos
s.&pnos
s.&pnas
s.&pna
s.&pn
s.&pn ... s.p&n
s.&pn ... s.p&M ... s.&pne ... s.p&n (TA vs. TB)

etc.

that is, optional metathesis in the proto-language occurs mostly
because of new consonant clusters created from the loss of final V.

If the cluster never becomes word-final, there's no need for met.
(in the proto, of course later met. can also occur) hence -pn- > -mn- etc.