On 2008-04-08 16:26, Patrick Ryan wrote:
> Have the scholars who postulated an initial *H2 in *yeu-, 'young', by any
> chance looked as *yeu-, 'mix'?
There is no *jeu- 'young'. The surviving cognates show that *//h2jew-//
was originally acrostatic (nom.sg. *h2óju, gen. *h2áju-s ~ *h2áiw-os,
later also *h2jéu-s on the analogy of mobile (proterokinetic) stems. The
verb root *jeu- has its vowel in a different interconsonantal slot and I
don't know of any good evidence for an initial laryngeal.
> I suspect an initial *H2 here.
>
> As for *H2ayo-, 'vital force', and *H2ayew-, it is instructive to look at
> *H2aw-, 'wet' and *H2aw, 'blow'.
I have grace doubts about the validity of anything like Pokorny's
"*au(e)- 'benetzen, befeuchten, fließen'." At any rate there's certainly
no initial laryngeal in *wed- (*wod-r./*wed-n.-). The 'blow' root is
definitely *h2weh1-.
> For my work, I know, but common sense will
> tell you that *H2 there derives from two different 'laryngeals': once *H
> associated with 'water', the other *H associated with 'air.
There is, admittedly, something onomatopoeic about *//h2weh1-// 'blow'
and possibly *//h2enh1-// 'breathe', though the PIE status of both is
guaranteed by their wide distibution and ample attestation. Actually, if
a root is transparently imitative, it's likely to be relatively young,
since the onomatopoeic effect diminishes over time as a result of sound
change (Eng. wind or Fr. vent have practically lost it). But in
principle the relationship between sound and meaning is arbitrary and
there is no reason why the same *h2 should not have occurred in "watery"
roots such as *//h2ep-//.
Piotr