From: stlatos
Message: 49069
Date: 2007-06-19
> --- Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:Oh, and also what I said about *nomn.eye+ > *no:miyi+ before:
>
> > That would mean there is no
> > independent support for
> > such a change. Other sonorant clusters may develop
> > into geminates but
> > don't cause vowel lengthening.
>
> But you said:
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski
> <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> > In our earlier discussion I
> > suspected a Proto-Germanic vr.ddhi formation,
> which is a possibility,
> > but perhaps the simplest solution is the best: the
> expected feminine
> > derivative of *kán-o:n would have been *kan-n-ih2.
> If at the time in
> > question the ancestor of Germanic did not tolerate
> geminated nasals,
> > degemination with compensatory lengthening would
> have produced
> *ka~ni: >
> > *ka:ni:, further transformations withing Germanic
> yielding secondarily
> > extended stems like *xo:n-jo:n- (ON hna) etc.
>
> I believe it was *kan-n.i:x > *xo:ni: with the
> second N (actually n.)
> disappearing and causing gemination for stops but
> V-lengthening for a
> sonorant. This can be seen in *melY-x-n.o+ >
> *me:la+
> 'black/dark/dirty > stain/mark'.
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen"
> <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > How would you explain Dutch naam "name", noemen
> "call, name"?
>
> The PGermanic *no:mijanan is simply the result of
>
> VNn>VVN
>
> as in *kano:n *kann+ > *xano:N *xo:n+ 'cock,
> chicken'
>
> With that it seems most likely to me that there
> was no long V (or
> VH) in PIE. It probably wasn't even a *-mn stem
> originally, just
> contaminated due to the large number of them (some
> with lex.
> similarities).