Re: [SPAM] [tied] Re: Latin /a/ after labials, IE *mori

On 2009-05-30 15:31, alexandru_mg3 wrote:

> 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

And *mon-éje- is an etymology that you 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 remembe
> 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.

There is no "root *menh2-/*mneh2-". We have only *mneh2-, the expected
causative of which would be *mnoh2-éje- (unattested).

Piotr