From: alexandru_mg3
Message: 64172
Date: 2009-06-13
>As I have showed all your h2-eye- > h2-aye formations a doubtfull.
> On 2009-06-13 01:01, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
> > One similar example, is vale:re :
> >
> > This is an -eh1-stative, formed as usual, from the zero-grade
> > *wlh2-eh1-that gives *vala:re ==> with regular -h2-eh1- > a: ....
> >
> > BUT the word is vale:re so it was reshaped in e: => vale:re in order to
> > retain the stative suffix e:
> >
> > THIS CLEARLY SHOW YOU THAT A RESHAPE PROCESS TOOK PLACE.
>
> There's very little similarity. The IE "essive" present of <valeo:,
> vale:re> was *wl.h(2?)-h1je/o-. Its Latin development is of course
> parallelled by many other similar stems, but not anything like -h2-aje/o-.
>
> > Also a reshaped form can appear (sometimes) for one word and not to
> > appear for others. Do you want examples?
> >
> > So your -a: examples, cannot serve as arguments, when we are talking
> > about re-shaping.
>
> Of course they can, since there's a whole bunch of them and they all
> behave _unlike_ yor proposed *monh2-. If you want to propose an ad hoc
> reshaping unique to that root, be my guest, but I hope you realise that
> it undercuts the plausibiliy if your suggestion.
>
> Piotr
>