Re: [tied] PIE *&>u?

On 2007-09-07 21:53, stlatos wrote:

> So, you believe that PIE & > o in Latin (homo:);

Originally <hemo:>, as in Old Latin. Some people prefer the notation
*CR.RV- or *CR.V- to my *C&RV-. My preference for the latter is due to
the fact that there are occasional discrepancies between the behaviour
of "true" *R. and the epenthetic vowel before a prevocalic resonant,
like here:

> what about your
> previous description of Cr,H- > Car-,

This _is_ exceptional (with /a/ rather than /o/), but the Lindeman
treatment of *CrV- is nevertheless the same as the reflex of *Cr.HV- in
Latin, both yielding CarV-.

> or supposed *t&thlo+ > tabula?
> What are the changes and order of H,>a in comparison to this?

It's the "laryngeal schwa", which behaves differently from the
epenthetic vowel.

> It is at the beginning of words in Gmc. that H, > a, never > u as in
> some positions. Why bul- if from *bh&l-? Why 0>& in such a common
> initial cluster and not in other words (or for equally common clusters
> of the same type)?

"Lindeman's Law" appears (optionally) in words that would otherwise be
monosyllabic, like *dje:m ~ *die:m, *k^wo:n ~ *k^uo:n, possibly *wre:n ~
*w&re:n, (Gk. hré:n ~ [w]aré:n), etc. The word *bHle:n meets this
description.

Piotr