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

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

>
> 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

You have started to talk again 'in general' when the specificty is needed here:

IV. To resume the situation using the Facts here:
-> Why "the evidence for [Schriver's Rule] is weaker"?

1. there is no laryngeal in mare (*mori)

2. there is no laryngeal in manus (*mon-)

3. mane:re could well be mon-eh1-
(I have also showed you non-nil-grades in -eh1-)

4. mora contained a laryngeal despite your initial assertion

5. moni:le could well be in linked with Skt. man.i- ... (that shows the laryngeal too)

etc..

etc...

-----------------------------------------------------------
==> So mone:re (< mon-'eye-) REMAINS THE SINGLE mo- EXCEPTION

this situation needs 'To make [yourself] to think about sth.'
-----------------------------------------------------------

Finally, based on what is a weak theory? Put down the arguments please....asserting without arguments means nothing...

Or you are waiting first somebody else to write in a book 'Yes, is Ok', or 'NO it isn't'?

So please be specific and talk about a specific issue if you see one

Marius


P.S.
(No direct link with this but we address in the topic):

I.
a. Does the [gen.] gWneh2-s reflect CReH- and the [nom.] gWenh2- CeRH-?

b. Did the 'son-in-law' forms in Latin, Baltic and Albanian shows 'at least a g^enh1- influence'?

c. Could znuots, kno:dai, jna:ti- etc...to reflect g^noh1-t-, when all of us can see a CReH-/CeRH- pattern above? Yes, it can.


II.
Also this 'To make sb. think about sth.' could only work in a reflexive way 'To determine yourself to think about sth.'
Honestly I cannot imagine how somebody can really determine somebody else -> to think...by maybe I have a handicap here ...

In addition 'to warn', is something else, than 'to make sb. to think'

On the other hand, what about:
'to mention, to remember' -> 'to warn'?
it sound better isn't it?