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

On 2009-06-13 01:37, alexandru_mg3 wrote:

> Secondly if swenh- has -h2- in the root is difficult to explain why OIr
> seinn has an e/o inflection

A late thematicisation. As you evidently have checked it up in LIV, you
must have seen Zehnder's comment. *swenh2- was an original root present.

> So is better to consider sona:re as a denominative derived from sonus.

I'm not sure it's better. It doesn't explain the Lat. perfect. Given all
the evidence that we have, <sono:> and <tono:> are most likely old
iteratives patly assimilated to the first conjugation _precisely_
because ot their root-final *h2, colouring the suffix. Another
well-known example is <domo:> 'tame' (*demh2-). They _all_ have exact
counterparts in Sanskrit (<svanáyati, stanáyati, damáyati>; note the
short vowel of the root, unlike <ma:náyati>). Just a coincidence? ;-)

> (In addition as you know we have sonere as well, that seems to be the
> oldest form (even it represents a different formation))

I know. It's just different, not necessarily older. Anyway, I was
talking about the supposed iterative formation.

> A similar situation is that one of tona:re where a denominative from
> tonus is the trivial solution.

Not so trivial, given that <tono:> preserves the original meaning of PIE
*(s)tenh2- 'to thunder'

> (In addition as you know we have tonere as well, that seems to be the
> oldest form too (even it represents a different formation), attested
> only once or twice)

Why the oldest? Why not a false third-conjugation form based on the
shared type of perfect?

Piotr