Re: Mitanni and Matsya

On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 16:26:01 -0500, "Patrick Ryan"
<proto-language@...> wrote:

>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Miguel Carrasquer Vidal" <miguelc@...>
>
>> On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 15:22:02 -0500, "Patrick Ryan"
>> <proto-language@...> wrote:
>>
>> >Miguel, why do you think that a 'laryngeal' must be reconstructed in
>> >*werH1-ú-?
>>
>
><Miguel answered:>
>
>> As Pokorny goes on to say:
>>
>> ai. vári:man.- m. n. `Weite, Umfang', várivas- n. `Raum,
>> Weite, Behaglichkeit', die eine schwere Basis voraussetzen.
>>
>
>***
>
>Thank you for the prompt response.
>
>I was aware of these but my assumption was that *wer-H- was an alternate
>stem for *wer-.
>
>I can easily see <várivas-> from *wer-H-u but <vári:man.> is past my
>knowledge of Sanskrit.
>
>It cannot be regular, can it?

These two forms reflect *werH-, without the *-u(n). They are
extended with *-wes- and *-men- instead. The (syllabic)
laryngeal shows up as -i- or -i:- (I discussed the latter
form recently: in my opinion it represents the analogical
merger of regular *wér&-mo:(n) obl. *wr.H-mén- > *várima:
obl. *vri:mán.-, becoming vári:ma: obl. vári:man.-).

In *wr.Hú ~ *urHú- (*varú- ~ urú-), the laryngeal is
consonantal and sits in the syllable onset, so it disappears
(after affecting the syllabic structure). I don't see any
reason for Pokorny's insecurity about connecting the two
sets of words.


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
miguelc@...