Re: [tied] PIE *&>u?

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:

>
> On 2007-09-08 03:57, stlatos wrote:

> *tl.h2-tlah2 > *tl.tHlah2 > *t&tlah2 with a "schwa secundum", i.e. an
> epenthetic vowel breaking up difficult consonant clusters in some
> branches and possibly in PIE as well, even if it wasn't phonemic:
>
> http://www.humnet.ucla.edu/pies/pdfs/IESV/1/BV_rhiza.pdf

> It tends to surface as /a/ in Italic and Celtic, /i/ in Greek and

/I/ in

> Slavic at least when flanked by obstruents. The standard notation

for it

> in the literature is a raised circle, but what I normally use here is
> /&/ without an index.

I think that's too many schwas for my blood; I'd leave H() as all
C+syl. in PIE times. As for "root, branch", first consider (in
simplified form):

*gYhorsdhyo+m gYhr,sdhi+ 'barley?'

>

*gYhorsdhyo+m > L hordeum

*gYhr,sdhi+ > *gYhr,z.d.hi+ > *khris.t.h+ > Gk kri:^


The retroflection causes metathesis. So:

*vraxdi:x vr,xdik+ 'small shoot of a plant'

> (mix of x/k in many IE languages)

*vraxdi:(k) > rha:di:k+

*vr,xdi(x)+ > *wr,z.d.i(x)+ > *wriz.d.x,+


It's a fairly odd cluster of C, so loss of one C is pos., dif. in
each branch, as:

*vr,xdik+ > *vx,d.ik+ > *wad.z.ik+ met> TB witsak-o

*vr,xdmo+ > *wr,dmo+ > *wridmo+ > EIr fre:m

> > How many schwas are there? Do you
> > say there's only one "laryngeal schwa"?
>
> No. The syllabic allophones of the three laryngeals must have been
> distinguishable in PIE, just as their reflexes are distinguishable in
> Greek. They were also distinct from "schwa secundum". The latter was
> usually coloured by a following resonant in branch-specific ways.

All right, if the following C matters, that makes it more likely,
but still:

In

> Lindeman variants of monosyllabic words with *CR- onsets we get *C&R-,
> just as *Cw- ans *Cj- may produce byforms with *Cuw- and *Cij-. It

seems

> that in Latin *C&RV- developed into CaRV- at least when the resonant

was

> /r/ or /n/ (I can't think of a secure example involving /l/):
>
> *k[&]r-o:n > caro: (from *ker- 'cut')
> *m[&]n-eh1-t > manet

But by K e>a is opt; o>a after P- seems like a possible opt. rule in
Latin (*moneye).

I think Latin also has e>a and a>e when C>K or K>KY as:

*xYnenkY+ > *xYnaNkY+ > nanci:scor

*xagY+; *xaxgY+ > *xexYgY+ > e:gi:

> In Germanic, syllabic laryngeals merged with *a in initial syllables

and

> seem to have been lost in most other cases (as in *Duxte:r).

All laryngeals first merged into x; after gY x>xY (or G>GY likely at
this point). Then x > 0, but xY didn't > 0 between syl.):

megY-x-lo+ ... bhergY-xY-wo+ ... dov-xY-tlo+
megY-x-lo+ ... bhergY-x-wo+ .... dov-x-tlo+
megY-xY-lo+ .. bhergY-xY-wo+ ... dov-x-tlo+
megY-xY-lo+ .. bhergY-xY-wo+ ... dow-x-tlo+
megY-xY-lo+ .. bhergY-xY-wo+ ... dowx-tlo+
megY-xY-lo+ .. bhergY-xY-wo+ ... dow-tlo+
megY-i-lo+ ... bhergY-i-wo+ .... dow-tlo+
etc.
mikY-i-la+ ... birkY-i-wa+ ..... taulla+
mikY-i-la+ ... birkY-i-wa+ ..... ta:lla+
mikY-i-la+ ... birkY-i-wa+ ..... ta:la+
mikY-i-la+ ... birkY-i-wa+ ..... to:la+