On 2007-07-07 03:55, stlatos wrote:
>> Just out of curiosity: why not *sjouh1-mo-?
>
> Between vowels xY>y and xW>v ( > w in most) so xY (h1) wouldn't give
> the correct forms. There are many examples of these changes...
I don't agree that *h1 was a palatal fricative or that it produced a
palatal glide between vowels, but that's irrelevant in this case. In
*sjouh1-mo- the *h1 is not intervocalic. Furthermore, we should expect a
laryngeal of any colour to drop out in this type of derivative in
accordance with de Saussure rule (and Rasmussen's revision thereof),
eventually yielding *sjoumo-.
My personal view (by no means communis opinio, but compatible with the
analysis of the 'seam' word) is that *ou was monophthongised to *u:
before syllable-final *h2 and *h3 (but not before *h1), and that this
monophthongisation was early enough to affect "O-infixed" derivatives.
Thus, for example, *dHOuh2-m(n)-ó- > *dHu:(h2)mó- > fu:mus, dHu:má-,
dymU etc. In this way I can account for the absence of expected
laryngeal breaking in Greek (which would have given pre-Gk. **tHwa:mos
if the PIE input had been simply *dHuh2-mó-).
Piotr