Re: Mitanni and Matsya

----- Original Message -----
From: "Miguel Carrasquer Vidal" <miguelc@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2008 6:45 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Mitanni and Matsya


> On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 18:20:57 -0500, "Patrick Ryan"
> <proto-language@...> wrote:
>
> >If I am understanding you correctly, then the answer to my question about
> ><vári:man.> is that it _cannot_ derive from *wer(H)-u- but derives from
> >*werH-.
> >
> >Now, is it not possible to see one root (*wer-) and a stem (*werH-)?
>
> It's possible, but I wouldn't recommend it.
>
> The adjective "wide", *wrH-ú-, must also contain a laryngeal
> (it's not *wr-ú-). That leaves nothing substantial upon
> which to base a putative unextended root *wer- "wide". And
> there are already too many *wer-'s as it is.
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> miguelc@...

***

I can wholehearted agree: there are too many *wer-'s but that is because
some of them represent early PIE **ber- rather than *wer-.

I would be tempted to see *4. swer- as an s-mobile form of the unextended
*wer-. Do you think that is possible?

In any case, the comparative evidence (e.g. HEgy <wr>, 'large', presents the
unextended root from Nostratic.

Furthermore, just theoretically, *wer- has to have existed to provide a base
for -*H.

And, we can agree that Varuna _could_ have been derived from *wer- rather
than *werH-, can we not?


Patrick





>