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.