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

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

>
> On 2009-05-31 14:46, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > > There is no "root *menh2-/*mneh2-".
> >
> > Did you here about CERH-/CREH- roots?
>
> The whole Schwebeablaut idea was demolished by Raimo Anttila in his 1969
> book. A PIE root may have either form, but not both of them at one time.
> We have *g^neh3- 'know' and *telh2- 'support', but no *g^enh3- or
> *tleh2-. Even an "extended root" has only one vowel slot, not two.
> may have late analogical forms or vr.ddhied derivatives with *e infixed
> in the "wrong" place (the *deiwo- type), but <moneo:> is neither of
> these.

Why is neither of these? when is exactly like this....


Some similar examples for you:

----------------------------------------------------------
Goth. knōdai [dat.sg.f.] 'family' *g^noh1-
Skt jñāti 'kinsman *g^noh1-ti-
Latv. znuõts 'son-in-law' *g^noh1-t-
----------------------------------------------------------

All these examples reflects *g^neh1- a TYPE-B of the root g^enh1- 'to beget'

> It's generally regarded as the causative of *men-,

Circular argumentation. 'We' know how is generally regarded...but this is not an argument....is like to say :
IS LIKE THIS : BECAUSE IS GENERALLY REGARDED TO BE LIKE THIS...

> and what could be wrong with that? Piotr

Is wrong...BECAUSE ONLY THIS WORD would have an unexplain o (mo-) when others has an a (ma-)

Marius