--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> On 2007-08-25 09:34, stlatos wrote:
>
> > It doesn't matter how reasonable it is. It's fine to make a theory
> > as a start, but then evidence should be carefully examined to confirm
> > or deny it. In my examinations there are definitely reasons to
> > reject this *mno+ entirely.
>
> And will you invent individual explanations for such items as
> *moi[h]-no- 'change', *wol[h2]-nah2 'wound', *wos-nah2 'purchase',
> *bHor-no- 'child', etc.,
No, I believe I will restate ONE rule I still have complete
confidence in:
all these examples have P/KW as the first C
P/KW e C (usually +son or +cont) > P/KW o C
within a syl, with the exact conditions varying between languages
(assuming most are reg. not opt.)
Also, in other words the e/o is seen varying among languages, such
as *mexYro+ / *moxYro+ 'great (in size)'; *medos > L modus; *webh+ > E
web, Gk huph-; *bherno+s 'child' > Germ *barnaz but Lith bernas (and
the compound *wedhew+bherno+ > *wedhewerno+ > *widiwirna+ > Goth
widuwairna 'bereft+child > orphan').
Of course, some similar ones are already accepted *kWekWlo+s >
kuklos, for example.
thus disqualifying them as evidence? Have you
> really examined the data?
Yes, I've carefully examined every word that could have e>o by P/KW
and tried to find patterns within languages and cognates without e>o
(or showing different changes). In some classes I was certain o came
from e (while making sure words without P/KW don't show o in the same
type of derivatives).