From: Arnaud Fournet
Message: 61137
Date: 2008-10-31
----- Original Message -----
From: "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2008 10:23 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: [pieml] Labiovelars versus Palatals + Labiovelar
Approximant
>
> On 2008-10-31 22:05, Arnaud Fournet wrote:
>
>> Greek phu-o "grow" with a short u from bhuH-o-
>> is an obvious support to the idea that
>> ku-on with a short u is from kuH2-on
>>
>> How do you explain these short u from -uH- ?
>
First message :
> In *bHuh-e/o- there is no compensatory lengthening for the simple reason
> that only a laryngeal in a syllable coda (final and preconsonantal)
> caused a preceding vowel to get lengthened. The disyllabic variant
> *k^uwo:(n) is a so-called "Lindeman form". Such a "drawling"
> pronunciation was only found in fundamentally _monosyllabic_ words
> beginning with *CR-. The disyllabic pronunciation of *-uh2o- (as in the
> gen.sg. *swek^ruh2os) was obligatory and not sensitive to word-length.
>
> Piotr
>
Second message :
Anything as complex as *k(^)uH2on was in all likelihood polymorphemic in
PIE, even if we can't identify the morphemes involved. Judging from its
vocalism, the 'dog' word was something similar to *h1dont-, i.e. a
secondarily hysterokinetic noun, possibly an old participle like
*k^éw-on(t)- transformed into a noun (for a similar process, see
*sah2-wl. --> *s[h2]wo:l, etc.).
Piotr
=========
I'm sorry
but It would be nice if you could translate the first message into plain
speech or unzip the theories behind most of the words.
and
I sense some kind of a contradiction between the first message and the
second.
If kuh2-on is a polymorphemic word,
I guess bhuH-o- is the same,
and they happen to behave the same way : short u.
Actually, you are explaining that the deletion of H in kuH-on is regular !!
No compensatory lengthening here !? hence ku-on
I'm afraid you'll have to provide much more explanation to explain your two
previous explanations.
A.