Re: Morimarusa

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...> wrote:

>
> At 6:08:25 PM on Friday, February 5, 2010, stlatos wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > I showed five changes; one of which ( r > ar ) is known to
> > all, and one of which ( t. > s. ) is needed to change *
> > mr.twos > * mar.s.wos > * mar.wos in most types of Celtic
>
> Strictly speaking, it isn't needed: Celtic need only have
> remodelled *mr.to- on *gWihwos 'alive'.

I don't understand what you mean. If there was remodelling of *mr,to- by *gWih3wo-, it would have been in PIE, with the result *mr,two-. Since *mr,two- is the known source of many IE words for 'dead', why should the Celtic be different?

> > Also, how extensive are these "mere orthographic
> > variations" supposed to be? For Belatucadros \
> > Balatucadrus \ Blatucadrus \ Balatocadrus \ Belatucairus \
> > Balatucairus \ Blatucairus \ Belleticaurus \ Baliticaurus
> > \ Balaticaurus \ Belatugagus in Britain, how does -d- vary
> > with -i-?
>
> Possibly in the same way that Lat. <cathedra> became OW
> <cateir> by vocalization of the /d/ before /r/.

As far as I remember, the disappearance of -d- lengthened the -e- > -e:- with no intermediate form with -i-. I don't remember what sound Welsh spelling -ei- indicates, or if late e: > ei occurred in loans. This doesn't matter for the Old British forms, as I have already said that since y > dY occured, this showed dY > y. I was not asking what sound change occured, but arguing that sound changes occured in the names of gods to create the variation, not mere orthography. My argument was that there was no way d/i could be orthographic variations but must show a change of some type.