From: alexandru_mg3
Message: 63974
Date: 2009-05-31
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
-----------------------------------------------------------
> And *mon-éje- is an etymology that you can skip?
Yes I'm obliged to skip , because we have mo- > mo- here
and in the same time we have Clear Etymologies showing mo- > ma-
AND THESE ETYMOLOGIES ARE MORE THAN ONE (-> mone:re)
mori > mare
mon- > manus
etc...
So you are obliged too...
-----------------------------------------------------------
> There is no "root *menh2-/*mneh2-".
Did you here about CERH-/CREH- roots?
-----------------------------------------------------------
>We have only *mneh2-, the expected
> usative of which would be *mnoh2-éje- (unattested).
>
> Piotr
Not true.
You have also ignored the root formation here:
The Root formation is the following:
The basic root men- Was Extended in -h2 to men-h2- > menh2-
From where monh2-eye < mone:re is OK, I don't need an attestation in another language once the causative formations R(o)-éye are well attested and if this explain mo- > mo- in Latin indicating also a perfect semantism 'to mention' > 'to warn'.
Next mneh2- is next a secondary full grade root of [via menh2- > mnh2- > mneh2
(Even if you like an inverse process to see mneh2 as an mn-eh2- root is OK too, because we have a CREH-/CERH- root here so mneh2-/menh2- is correct )
I can give you bibliography of similar root formation -> I mean root formation extended with a laryngeal and also bibliography about CREH-/CERH- roots => based on this you will see than *menh2-/*mneh2- assertion is correct.
Next, you have also ignored that 'to think, to be mentally excited' -> 'to warn' is not a semantism that work directly...is quite a poor one
'to mention, to remember' -> 'to warn' is a direct one.
Marius