--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> On 2009-05-29 15:52, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
> > 4. In this case *monh2-eye is /mon-h2e-ye/ and the o is preserved in a
>
> If it were, there would be no Brugmannian lengthening in Skt. ma:náyati.
>
> Piotr
>
Piotr, please do not create confusion here:
I'm sure that you know too, that there are two PIE Roots:
1. *men- 'to think, to be excited'
2. *mneh2 - 'to mention, to remember'
The second root *menh2-/*mneh2- is considered an Extended Root of the First One *men-
Next:
1.a Skt. ma:náyati belongs to the First Root men- and its derivation is mon-éye [LIV 435]
1.b Latin mone:re 'to warn' is Currently considered from the First Root *men- too: as *mon-éye too [LIV 435]
==> but the preservation of the o-inside is in contradiction with the a in mare (< *mori ) or manus (< *mon-) to quote only the sure etymologies that nobody can skip
However:
a) The semantism of mone:re 'to warn' is much closer to that one of the extended root menh2-/mneh2- 'to mention, to remember'
b) and (more important) if we will derive it from menh2-/mneh2- root, based on Andrew's suggestion here, its phonetism will be in accordance with Schriver's Model :
mo-CV > ma-CV in Latin in open syllables
moC- > moC- in Latin in closed syllables
So is obvious that Latin mone:re 'to warn' should be derived, from now on, from the root menh2-/mneh2- as monh2-éye [mon-h2é-ye]
The arguments above are so obvious, and also the clarification that this derivation will give us, regarding why we have mo->ma- and mo->mo- in Latin, in the same time, are so huge: that there is no other choice.
Marius
P.S. at least till another counter-example will come...