From: Joao S. Lopes
Message: 66003
Date: 2010-03-19
--- In cybalist@... s.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@... > wrote:
>
> At 8:54:55 PM on Wednesday, March 17, 2010, dgkilday57
> wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@... s.com, "G&P" <G.and.P@>
> > wrote:
>
> >> [DGK]
>
> >>> The form *wenh1-us- avoids the difficulty that Old Latin
> >>> *venos 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/. We should expect
> >>> Lat. *vonus, not <venus>, from an /es/-stem.
>
> >> [PG]
>
> >> Sihler discusses PIE *e > Latin *o before *w or l
> >> pinguis, and after consonant +w, then says, "Evidence for
> >> *we > Latin wo in other environments is scanty and
> >> suspect. ... A better case can be made for PIE *wemh1 >
> >> vomo ... Elsewhere *we- > vo only before l pinguis ..."
>
> >> So I'm not convinced we should expect *vonos from PIE
> >> *venos. As for *venh1-os, the slight evidence there is
> >> (PIE *vemh1o) suggests the h1 would not prevent this
> >> change (if there were such a change).
>
> > The /o/-umlaut which I have described is independent of
> > the shifts before /w/ or /l/ pinguis, and after /sw/.
> > That it is indeed umlaut is shown by <bene> from *dvene:
> > (with iambic shortening) and <bellus> from *dvenelos,
> > beside <bonus> from <dvenos>.
>
> Sihler prefers to take *dwe- > dwo- > bo- as the regular
> development and treat <bene>, <bellum> and <bellus> as
> exceptions, noting that the last two 'may be explained by
> the following <l> exilis'.
I find that incomprehensible, since /l/ exilis is the allophone before /i/ and /i:/, and *dwenelo- would have /l/ pinguis. Moreover /l/ exilis cannot front a preceding /o/ to /e/ as we see from <folium>, <lolium>, etc. All it can do is prevent the backing of /e/ to /o/ which occurs before /l/ pinguis, thus <velim> beside <volo:>, etc. And geminated /ll/, even if assumed to be exilis, cannot front a preceding /o/ as we see from <collis>, <follis>, etc.
Apart from <bene>, taking *dwe- > dwo- > bo- as regular would make it difficult to explain <be:stia> and <bea:re>. For the former, the only plausible explanation I have seen involves an Italic adjective *dweyestos formed from the neuter *dwey-es- 'object of fear', related to *dwey-ros 'fearsome, dire' which has come through Sabine as <di:rus>. And <bea:re> is likely a denominative from *dw-ey-a:, from the zero-grade of *deu- like <dvenos>. If *dwe- became *bo- rather than *be-, we should expect other reflexes for both of these in Latin.
DGK