Re: [tied] Re: morsha

On 2007-09-07 03:17, stlatos wrote:

> Is it really likely that a supposed & would > u instead of > a in
> Germanic?

Yes, as in *Guman-. The development of Lindeman's epenthetic segment
resembles the ordinary development of syllabic consonants in all
branches and is indistinguishable from that of *CR.HV-.

> Why do both Greek and Germanic show both ll and l?

*bH&lVn-/*bHl.n- > *Bulan-/*Bull- > *Bulan- (OE, ON) ~ *Bullan- (MHG).
Both in Germanic and Greek *-ln- > -ll-, so little wonder that -ll-
crops up in both. Where a different pattern of vocalisation prevents
*-l.n- from assimilation, you can see both consonats, as in Geg blini.

> Your explanation requires n in all the words, but there are clearly
> two different sets, one ending in -on- and used for an animal. Are
> you saying those with -ln- are derived from this? It's almost
> certainly the other way around ('swollen' >> 'a swollen animal').

I've been trying to propose a common base precisely for those that refer
to big/fat animals. Of course the semantic development is as above. I
don't suggest it's otherwise, or deny the fact that the root *bHel- has
other derivatives not involving a nasal suffix.

Piotr