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

On 2009-06-12 23:30, alexandru_mg3 wrote:

> I know, Piotr: the g^noh1-t- forms are still OPEN for debate.
> But Rix also write 'metathesis' (not metathesis) recognizing a long path
> of restructurations , not a simple phonetic transformation
> And I have the feeling that Rix has Only Opened the Path....

I'm sure he didn't intend to open Pandora's box.

> (like: 'what if, initially, PIE has only CREH- roots?' I know is only a
> pure supposition, or much simple "who knows what type-root was 'the
> first' one?" )

There's absolutely no evidence that roots like, say, *temh1- 'cut',
*perh2- 'trade off', *telh2- 'support' or *h2arh3- 'plough' ever had any
"grade II" forms.

> On the other hand, the semantism:
>
> *g^neh3- 'to know' -> *g^noh3-t- 'clan'
>
> ...is not Ok, versus
>
> *g^enh1- / *g^neh1- 'to beget' -> *g^noh1-t- 'clan'
>
> (at least, not for me)

Then "known" = "familiar" isn't OK in your book? ;-)

> P.S. BUT *mnoh2-'eye > *monh2-'eye is CLOSED, isn't it?

Yes, but not the way you'd like to close it. On second thoughts there is
a really fatal objection to such a reconstruction. Your hypothetical
*monh2-eje/o- would have been realised as *monáh2je/o-, which would have
yielded Lat. +mono: (< *monájo:), not moneo:, cf. domo: < *domh2ájo:.

Piotr