Re: Mitanni and Matsya

On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 19:47:04 -0500, "Patrick Ryan"
<proto-language@...> wrote:

>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Miguel Carrasquer Vidal" <miguelc@...>
>
>> 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.
>>
>***
>
>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?

Which *wer-?

>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.

No, I don't think that any PIE root ending in -CC has to be
an extension of a root ending in -C.

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

Sure. Varuna could have been derived from *wer-, *werH-,
*Hwer-, *HwerH-, *wel-, *welH-, *Hwel- or *HwelH-.

But Piotr's proposal (*wérHuno-) is the only one I've seen
so far that makes sense both formally and semantically.

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