Re: [pieml] Labiovelars versus Palatals + Labiovelar Approximant

From: Edgard Bikelis
Message: 61104
Date: 2008-10-31

On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 1:08 PM, Arnaud Fournet <fournet.arnaud@...> wrote:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2008 1:19 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: [pieml] Labiovelars versus Palatals + Labiovelar
Approximant


>
> Arnaud Fournet wrote:
>
>
>> Latin can-is better fits kh2n-
>
> But it doesn't fit *k^uh2(o)n-, and that's what you proposed. *k^uh2n-
> would have given Lat. *cu:n-. Did the *u disappear just like that?
==========
When unstressed, all vowels disappear in PIE stage,
so kuH2on- when stressed on kuH2on-""i
becomes kH2n-""i > kan-""i
U disappears like all other vowels do.
No big deal.
Arnaud
============

So *k'lu-tós should be *k'.l-tós? *wid-tós *udtós or *dtós? ; ). I can't see how the cognates could come from that. What about the thematic vowel? Is there any other word whose etymology can be saved with this rule besides canis?

Edgard.

Previous in thread: 61103
Next in thread: 61106
Previous message: 61103
Next message: 61105

Contemporaneous posts     Posts in thread     all posts