--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> On 2008-04-15 22:53, stlatos wrote:
>
> > What about comparison with Germanic? What do you believe gave hund
> > and mund?
I do not believe these come form participles. Even if they did,
what are the chances that such would only be retained in one branch
and in two words of nearly the same phon. form?
Staying near standard theory, since H>0 between syl., etc., these
(could be) the only words in which Hn remained at the time of a sound
change.
If n>n0 (n-voice) after H, occurring after the changes H>0 between
syl. and H>_>V / V_$C then it would seem that since later H>a/u, etc.,
only n0 > nt between V is needed.
The short V in 'dog' because after V>0 in, say, *kYu-xWa-nas >
*kYu-xWnas the syllabification remained the same. Most Hn didn't come
from -(o)n stems, of course, so one syl. would remain more common in
terms of sheer numbers of words.
> *k^wn.tó-, perhaps. The *-t- may have belonged to the original stem,
> _if_ the 'dog' word was a formation related to *-nt- participles (like
> *h1dont-), but the evidence for that is scanty.
>
> > Do you have any evidence for *kYwn,- instead of *kYuwn,-?
>
> Gmc. *xunða- could derive from either (or from *k^untó-, for that
> matter). But we have Ved. s'vabHis (not +s'umbHis) < *k^wn.-bHis.
Why would you say *kYuwn,- > *s'un- instead of *s'uva-? And then in
Ir (of some kind) dim. *suvaka- >> sobaka.