Re: Latin -idus as from dH- too

----- Original Message -----
From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 11:20 PM
Subject: [Courrier indsirable] Re: [tied] Latin -idus as from dH- too


On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 09:55:34 +0100, "fournet.arnaud"
<fournet.arnaud@...> wrote:

>As regards *su:bula,
>It's quite obvious I disagree with *siuH1
>
>Meillet p 964
>Pour "coudre", l'i.e avait une racine *syu:
>avec doublet su:,
>dans latin suô, il n'y a pas de trace de-y-.

That's a bit weak from old Antoine. Is there any trace of
sy- in Latin at all?

>Why should we need H1 in this root ?
==============

As Meillet says, the root is <s(y)u:->, with long <u:>. The
only source of <u:> is <uH>. It must be specifically *h1
because the verb is in the Balto-Slavic barytone accent
paradigm while from oxytone *sjuh1-jé-. The retraction of
the accent was caused by Hirt's law, and I believe Hirt's
law did not affect sequences of resonant + *h2/3 (cf. Slavic
bylá < *bhuh2-láh2, pilá < *pih3-láh2).

Miguel
=======================

I don't need an extra H
as *s_H2_w can be su:

Now, I suppose this retraction is only baltic
so I mean Baltic should have
maintained a distinction
between the different H down to a very
close period.
It's difficult to believe.

The other problem is
the Uralic loanword "string" sone P442
Not a single word displays something
that could ring like H1
(it should become yod
if borrowed early enough)
PU forms are derived from
either a short *sun
(Mordvin, Cheremis, Votiak)
or long *so:n (Finnish, Lapp)
or *sin (Hungarian, Samoyed)

And Egyptian is *s_z_b

There is no H1.

Arnaud

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