On 2009-06-04 12:20, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
> This clearly show you that this alternance EXISTS.
>
> Is this an Schwebeablaut issue, here, Piotr? For sure NOT...
>
> So why you have created confusions by invoking it?
The original question was the etymology of <moneo:>. You tried to argue
that -- contrary to communis opinio -- it comes from *menh2-, the
alleged by-form of *mneh2-. What you posit here _is_ schwebeablaut in a
verb root, and worse still, it's precisely the arbitrarily invoked,
sloppy kind of schwebeablaut that haunted IE studies but was put to rest
by Raimo Anttila in his book. If you have read him, you know what I
mean. It has nothing to do with the vocalism of accentually mobile nouns
(like *gWen-h2-/*gWn-ah2-), which is governed by different
morphophonological rules.
Let me repeat: the derivation of *mon-éje/o- from *men- 'think,
consider' as a handbook example of a PIE causative is impeccable
notwithstanding your noisy propaganda to the contrary. 'To make sb.
think about sth.' --> 'to warn sb. of sth.' is a straightforward and
requires no leap of faith. The objection that Schrijver's
delabialisation should apply in *mon-éje/o- would only be valid if
Schrijver's rule were well established, which it isn't; the evidence for
it is weaker than the evidence for <moneo:> being what everyone but you
thinks it is. Actually it's the proponents of the delabialising rule who
should rethink it in the light of <moneo:> (_and_ <mora>) rather than
the other way round. One could just as well insist that *moRH- > *maRH-
and reconstruct a laryngeal in <mare> and <manus>. There is no
independent evidence for such a thing either, but at least it wouldn't
contradict any generally accepted etymologies.
Piotr