W dniu 2011-06-12 21:50, stlatos pisze:
> Because of the whole point of my theory: that xW > w here. G then had
> the same change as Slav.
In other words, *h3 developed into a *w which then disappeared (for
whatever reason), leaving no trace either in Slavic or in Greek. And we
are seriously expected to accept this invisible reflex as convincing
evidence for *h3 > *w?
> So you are saying the word for 'wedding gift' did not come from
> 'wed+gift'?
A term like that does not have to be a compound spelling out its meaning
in terms of simpler concepts. And supposing, for the sake of the
argument, that it were such a compound, the first member ought to be a
noun meaning 'wedding', or perhaps a case form thereof. A mere "root
equation" is not enough. What's your *wedH- supposed to be? It's the
quotation form of a verb root whose primary meaning is 'to lead'. Even
if there were a root noun derived from it (and no such word is
attested), its PIE compositional form would not be *wedH-. Ablauting
stems take the zero grade in this position, even if accented. The
reconstructions I suggest are consistent with whwt we know of PIE
word-formation, they yield the attested reflexes straightforwardly, and
they take into account things like the fact (ignored by you) that the
Germanic noun is a consonantal *-mon- stem (not a thematic formation in
*-nó-!).
> I disagree and see no ev. for xY- here, since, as far as I
> know, the Greek ev. that you could be advocating for it would just be
> from Hom. with e- or -a- (after an-) due to later emended forms doubling
> whatever V was left to keep the needed poetic form (such as for '20')
> from the unknown form by which Greek w- opt. > h- (possibly w- > uw- >
> huw- > hw- > h- (since all G u- > hu-)).
>
> > The use of both roots
> > in connection with marriage could easily lead to their confusion (which
> > probably happened in Baltic, but hardly elsewhere).
>
> There is no ev. for this other root. You have chosen to ignore the
> obvious expl. from meaning in favor of no expl. at all.
With a whole arsenal of magical optional rules plus liberally invoked
metatheses and dissimilations you doubtlessly can "explain" anything,
which unfortunately devoids the method of any real explanatory
potential. So yes, I chose to ignore such "obviousness".
Piotr