From: alexandru_mg3
Message: 64160
Date: 2009-06-12
>This is a detail Piotr , a reshaped in -o:,-e:re is understandable
> 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