*tl,xmn,+ > tólma
*tr,xYmo+ > tórmos
*pr,xWmo+ > prómos; Lith pìrmas
*wlxwo+ > ou^los 'curly'
*mn'wo+ > món(w)os but *mnwó+ > man(w)ós
*tr,kWno+ > tórnos
*pl,xYú+s pl,xYw+ > *palús pólw+ > polús polló+
R+tone X > oR/Ro before m/w
R+tone X > oR/Ro between w
C+tone > oC/Co between m & w
C+tone kW > oC/Co before N
In Greek o>u between a labial (or _ velar) and a sonorant by
Cowgill's Law.
If these were original o, why not *mun(w)os, *wul()os, *prumos,
*pulus? I assume you don't think polu- has original o, at least.
--- Piotr Gasiorowski <
gpiotr@...> wrote:
> On 2007-06-21 00:23, stlatos wrote:
>
> > That makes many more assumptions than I do. It is
> not necessary for
> > the Greek ev. to go back to PIE. The cognates
> such as Lith pìrmas
> > with prómos show RX could sometimes > oR/Ro.
> Since Greek shows the
> > most complicated changes in RX, diff. outcomes
> before (and between,
> > etc.) P and KW for R and RX seem reasonable.
>
> But Jens explains lots of other things at the same
> time.
He conflates many things. Most of his ev. is the result of changes
within branches, not PIE oddities. For examples, all Baltic ev. for
o-o behaving as e-o has the e/o next to P/KW allowing rounding.
There is no one rule to explain all he talked about; I'm dealing
with most of the Greek ev. by a Greek change.