From: dgkilday57
Message: 65988
Date: 2010-03-18
>I believe the change you mention occurs only before /r/, /s/, and /t/, so an earlier *vonos, *vonus would have remained *vonus in classical Latin.
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@> wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > Regarding the Latin confusion of stems, we have some /us/-stem neuters as well as the more common /es/-stems. Pokorny regards OHG <Sigur-ma:r> as reflecting a neuter *seg^H-us- parallel to the more common *seg^H-es-. Perhaps Lat. <venus>, <venustus> reflect an original nt. *wenh1-us-, with the gen. <veneris> analogical after regular /es/-stems with /os/ in the nom./acc. sg., like <genus>, <generis>.
> > >
> > The form *wenh1-us- avoids the difficulty that Old Latin *venos (nom./acc. sg. from *wenh1-es-) should have undergone /o/-umlaut of the /e/ in this position, with a simple nasal between the vowels and /w/, /h/, or zero before the /e/. Hence OL <dvenos> > *dvonos > <bonus>, *hemo: (old acc. sg. <hemonem> Paul. Fest.) > <homo:>, *enos > <onus>. We should expect Lat. *vonus, not <venus>, from an /es/-stem.
>
> But doesn't initial *vo- become <ve-> in Latin (e.g. vo:s but vester, vertex beside earlier vortex, probably others (perhaps e.g. <vermis> for earlier <vormis>, cf. Gmc *wurmiz))?