Re: Latin /a/ after labials, IE *mori

On 2009-05-28 22:50, alexandru_mg3 wrote:

>
>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:cybalist%40yahoogroups.com>,
> Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:

> > Why, then, moneo: < *mon-éje/o-? Why mora < *(s)mor-ah2?
> > OTOH, a reduced-grade /a/ (or a Lindeman treatment of initial *mn-) can
> > occur in *maneo: < *m(&)n-éh1-.
>
> A) mane:re falls in the rule above so we regularly have:
>
> 1. *mon-éh1- > mane:re

That's how Schrijver explains it, but not how IE fientives are formed.
The expected grade is zero, not *o.

> 2. *mori- > mare
> 3. *mon- > manus
>
> Note: There is no need for m(&)n- m(&)rei- patterns (or mr-i) etc..
>
> BUT In this Context *mon-éye would have been resulted again as *mane:re
> 'to warn' but Semantically is different from mane:re 'to stay' : so is
> normal to be retained/restored as an o-causative mone:re

This is an ad hoc explanation.

> 1. *mon-éh1- > mane:re 'stay, remain'
> 2. *mon-éye- > *mane:re (again) 'to warn' > mone:re 'to warn'
>
> B. mora 'pause, delay' is from the root *merh- so it was *morh-eh2
> And in this case, we have a closed syllable here: *mor-heh2

No, the Indo-Iranian treatment of the root (Skt. perf. sasma:ra <
se-smór-e, adj. smr.tá- 'remembered' < *smr.tó-) rules out a final
laryngeal.

Piotr