--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> W dniu 2011-06-13 01:35, stlatos pisze:
> >
> > It is you who are the one who appears willing to ignore ev. such as
> > OHG widomo and standard G instead of mixed-up Homeric forms.
> >
> No, I didn't ignore them. I just assumed it was pretty self-evident how
> they could be accounted for within the standard reconstruction. If it
> wasn't clear enough, the explanation is provided in a parallel posting.
>
Why did OHG have -d- as if from Gmc -T- ?
Why does * PL wógWH-mis.+ corr. to PBalt wógWH-n.is.+ and PGmc wógWH-n.i-s.ón.+ > wogWH-n.à-s.on.+ ? Was there -mn- w/in the PIE form, or was it, do I dare?, a compound?
If you think the -u- in Gmc needs only a Gmc expl., perhaps you've noticed that -u- that appears to replace -x- varied w/out expl. > u/i/a/0 , as in widamo , etc., just as i > i/a/0 in * wógWH-n.i-s.ón.+ > wogWH-n.à-s.on.+ . All u/i from any source can so change. Since this happens in all IE branches, all w/out expl., it is very old and can't be expl. w/in Gmc alone.
The ev. for this includes Indic -ika- / -aka- / -ka- , usually thought to be very recent, but the same as in * gWeLxYú+ = peaked/pointed/stinging (insect/vermin) > jalauka- \ jalu:ka:- \ jalika:- corr. to G * bLewúxY+ > blé[w]ues (p) and * byeL-w+ > bdélla (p) 'leeches' , as well as to * gWeL-xY-w+ > * gWeL-i-w+ > * gWeL-wi+ > délli:thes '~wasps' .
There's also:
púlinges (p) 'locks / curls' G; pulaka-s 'horripilation' S; * puLukón.+ > ulcha 'beard' EI;
epikulídes (p) G; cilium 'eyelid', supercilium 'eyebrow' L;
* pet.-r.un.-n.ó+ > pet.-r.un.-r.ó+ > R > G >
ptérux ptérugos (g) 'wing' G; pataga- 'winged / flying' S; patang 'bird/etc.' Kamv;
* pet.-r.ur.-r.ó+ > pet.Ht.H-r.u-r.ó+ > pet.Hs.-r.u-r.ó+ >
pAt.ü´ Kamv; pAt.ú Sa; pHáat.u A;
* pet.-r.ur.-r.ó+ > pet.-r.ut.-r.ó+ > pe-t.at.-r.ó+ >
pátatra- 'wing / feather' V S;
* pet.-r.ut.-r.ó+ > pet.-r.-t.-r.ó+ > pet.-t.r.ó+ >
pátra- V \ páttra- S; pòt.s. Kh; pës.al Torw;
* pet.-r.-t.-r.ó+ > pt.r.et.-r.ó+ > pt.Let.-r.ó+ >
flatër Al; etc.
* pt.r.et.-r.ó+ > pt.e-r.ó+ >
pterón G;
etc.
Why is there no ev. for e- in G except in forms known to be poetically "corrected"?