From: Rick McCallister
Message: 49854
Date: 2007-09-07
> 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
>
>