--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> On 2008-01-24 03:41, stlatos wrote:
>
> > I do not believe any nouns in -mo- or -no- are derived from *-mn, or
> > anything similar. This argument of mine is not about -no- of PIE
> > origin, but of a sound change of m>n. after velar stops in Latin (and
> > sim. in other IE branches).
>
> That's of course possible, with the obvious exception of K-men wods
> (tegmen etc.), where presumably the dissimilatory effect of /n/ blocks
> the change.
I already discussed this, but said it happened when n., > en. hadn't
occurred yet (m>n. / velar stop_*n.) which is similar to changes in
other branches (such as *pYrxWm(o)n.+ > *furwan+ / *furmn+ > forwost,
forma, etc.; *kól-xW-mo(n.)+ > kolo:nós, kolophó:n).
> The m/n alternation is what Rasmussen observes in <tormos>
> vs. <porne:> (there are also other related phenomena not mentioned in
> his postings here but discussed in his publications). He doesn't take
> into account other place-of-articulation constraints, but perhaps he
> should. I would claim myself (still assuming the *-mn- analysis as a
> working hypothesis, pace your scepticism) that after root-final *w (*u)
> it's the -m- that regularly remains, contrary to Jens's predictions, see
> *s(j)ou[h1]mos, *sroumos,
You already described this and more before. I stand by my earlier
responses. My list of contradictions included (o)u-mo words you said
didn't count. What about those with both P and u (pugnus, bottom)?
I still think I gave plenty of ev. according to your descriptions of
the theory with cross-branch agreement to raise serious doubts about
any variation.
> and there is some hard-to-explain dialectal
> variation e.g. in the 'foam' word: Lat. spu:ma, Gmc. *faima- vs. Lith.
> spáine., Slav. *pe^na, Skt. pHéna-.
I just don't understand why such interesting evidence would be
considered from a change of PIE time. Also, since I don't think any
words with -mo- come from those with -mn, (-mYn.,) I'm not putting
this in terms of -mno- > -mo/no- in PIE, but of m>n. in certain
positions in each IE branch. Some have optional rules that directly
show the alternation. Aside from the ev. from Latin:
*d(e)ikYmYn.,+ > G dei~gma 'sensory evidence'
*dóíkYmó+ > Goth taikns 'sign'
L columen
*kól-xW-mo+s kl,-xW-m,+ > OS holm 'hill'; Lt kálnas 'mt.'; G kolo:nós
*vYógYh exYè+ > *vYógYheyè+
*vYógYhexYtí+ > *vYógYhixYtí+
*vYógYhexYmYn.,+ > G óche:ma
*vYógYh-xY-mó+ > Gmc *wagana+; OIr fén; Lt vez^ìmas
*kWs.ep+ 'evening'
*unkWs.pmo+ > Lt unksme: / -unksne:, L
*unspmo+ >
*unfmo+ >
*umfno+ >
*umfro+ >
umbra 'shade'
*LapYs.mo+ > Lt liepsna; Lv liesma
*LoikWmo+ > Gmc *laixWna+
*paL-x-mo+ > Skt pa:ní-
*xWorbYhmo+ 'bereft' > Goth arms; G orphanós
I'd also say NN combos, including those in later analogical
creations, remained. Neither -mn.V- nor -mYn.V- was reduced in PIE.
Various branches had some changes including:
*dhéxYmó(n.)+ /
*dhóxYmó(n.)+ '(a) placing on/together, heap'
*dhóxYmn.ko+, -ik+, -id+ 'cord, rope' > fu:nis, tho:miGx
*kn.,mYn., > *kUmen
*kn.,mYn.ixYn.o+ 'made of blocks of wood' > Slavic
*kUni:go+ 'book, etc.'
*xakYmo:n.
*xakYmn.ixYn.o+ 'made of stone' > OP
atha(n)gaina-
*LomYmo+ 'depression, hollow' > Lt lo:~mas
*kxamYn.o+ > *xawán.a+ > Kh hún 'saddle'; Lt ka~mano:s 'leather bridle'
The ~opposite in:
*vYegWhni+ > O-U *wounWis > L vo:mis
*xWnogWh+ 'nail' > TA maku
I do believe in some PIE regular dis-/assimilatory changes, but they
start with single sounds (-wo-, -n.o-, -mo- not -mno-, etc.) and
you've dismissed some of them before (*xYrudhwo+ > -dWhro+, -*swopmo+
> -n.o+, etc.).