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

On 2009-06-12 21:48, alexandru_mg3 wrote:

> One of the close example to our topic is that one of PIE kWyeh1- 'come
> to rest'
>
> Latin quie:tus 'quiet' < *kWyeh1-to- Full Grade: CREH-
>
> versus
>
> OCS po-kojo, 'quiet,refresh' < *kWoih1-'eye- Full Grade: CERH-
>
> =============================================
> To be more clear : the rule is:
> CREH-Syllabic > CERH-Syllabic
> =============================================
> PIE *mneh2- >> *mnoh2-'eye > *monh2-'eye (quod erat demonstrandum)
> =============================================

I agree that Slavic shows reflexes of *kWoih1-o- and *kWoih1-eje/o- in
accordance with Rix's rule. But there are forms that don't support it:
*pe-plóh1-e, *g^e-g^nóh3-e, *h1roh1-éje/o-, etc. A causative of *men-
certainly existed: the Indo-Iranian forms can only reflect *mon-éje/o-,
since a laryngeal would have blocked the Brugmannian lengthening of the
root vowel (cf. paváyati, jaráyati). Why should the Latin cognate be
something different? Just because it doesn't display Schrijver's
delabialisation?

Piotr