Re: [tied] Latin m>w, w>m

----- Original Message -----

From: stlatos

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 9:31 AM

Subject: [Courrier indésirable] Re: [tied] Latin m>w, w>m

--- In cybalist@... s.com, "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@ ...>
wrote:
>
> Also w > m after ru:
>
> *dakYru 'tear'
> *dakYrwax > *dakY-u-wax 'tears'
> ============ ======
> A.F :
> An interesting possibility is that
> this morpheme is actually from *m? (glottalized m).

I do believe a glottalized m existed,

======

A.F :  good news

===============

but it merged with m long
before PIE.

===========

A.F

I definitely disagree with this statement.

Could you please give examples supporting this idea ?

=======================

I'd also say there was Nm > M (velar+bilabial > labiodental nasal)
and M>w between V or after a sonorant C. This is separate from the
changes of m>w in specific environments that occur in various IE
languages (not PIE); I'm fairly sure I have most of them covered
thoroughly, though I've barely discussed any but the Latin and Gmc.
changes here.

In Greek and similar languages various forms of x() or other C < x
in certain environments cause both a following mY>w and final n.>r. as:

*piixY-mYn., > *pi:-war > pi^ar 'fat'

*per-x-mYn., > *pers.-war > pei^rar 'end'

======================

the plain x>s() also in:

*bhax+ 'shine, appear'
*bhanYax+ (present)
*bhanY-x-mYn. , > *phanYsY-mYn. , > phasma / phantasma
===============

A.F :

No.

In this root, it is highly probable that H2 is glottalized : H2.5 *s? or H2.6 *ts?

as in Arabic (wa-)bis?-a = to be bright, clear

(t)s? might (---might--- ?!?) be preserved in this Greek word,

although I deem more probable that -s-ma is not H2 + mn but -s- + -mn

I suggest you keep H1 H2 H3 as generic symbols for laryngeals

instead of using your own putative identifications,

It obscures which sounds you are handling with.

Phonetic identifications of Laryngeals are controversial,

Your personal identifications do not look convincing enough to allow replacement of generic H1 H2 H3.

=====

but

*dunYax+ 'bend back and forth, be strong' (present)
*dunY-x-mYn. , > *dun-a-mnY, > dunami-s

with the difference in preceding a vs. u causing the dif. outcomes.

=========

A.F :

 

No.

It is highly probable that Greek *duna is the nasalized infixed form of *t?_H3.1

represented in Arabic t?_?w_ l = to be competent, able to.

Greek displays a metathesis : t?_-n-H3 = d_n-?w is reshaped as du-n-?- = *duna-

This cluster of strange weak consonants was too much for Ancient Greek to handle.

=======================

The determining V dif. can also be seen in:

*dexY+ 'bind'
*dexY-mYn., > *des.-mYn., > desmos

the i preserves xY in *piixY-mYn., long enough for it to participate
in the later change > w.

Indo-Iranian had some similar changes but often xY>y, xW>w, etc.

*+ixYn.o+s > *+iyn.o+ > -ina-
*+ixY-n.,+ > *+iy-n.,+ > -in-

*dexY-mYn., > *de-e-mYn., > da:man-

> As is :
> *sam? "sun" :
> PIE saw-(el/n) = Semitic sham(sh)

======================

This must be from Nm as it denasalizes to either g or w in Uralic.
=============

A.F :

 

Please explain.

I don't understand a single word in this sentence, apart from "Uralic" and "denasalize" which you don't have to explain.

=====================