--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <stlatos@...> wrote:
>
> Actually, almost all Gmc ww / jj came from PIE wx / yxY / etc., and apparently xw / etc., if they underwent opt. met. as in:
>
> * mHixY-wó+ = measuring/big; >>
>
> * mHixY-w+ (v) > mi:va:mi (1s) = grow fat S;
>
> * mHixY-we-Ló+ (dim) = litte fat/round thing >
> * mHiw-xYe-Ló+ > wh > ww / uw >
> mývell = ball OIc; miggel = snowball Sw;
>
>
> This is in addition to earlier opt. changes of X > X / q / G / R, etc.; which, since xw > Xw , account for alternations like qius Go; cwic(u) OE; or stack, stow, etc.
>
This uvular R usually > r in historical Gmc. Also, at:
http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/books/piep07.html
Winfred P. Lehmann, when discussing OHG r-preterites says: "The sequence assumed here for seventh class verbs is PIE /eXw/ [eXu], for first class verbs /yX/ [iX]. I suggest that in these sequences the laryngeals were preserved, and that their reflexes fell into the OHG r-phoneme."
(note: Lehmann uses X to symbolize any "laryngeal"; I use it for the uvular fricative)
He's on the right track, but only xW > XW and x() > X() by w, etc., underwent it, and only optionally X>R>r (scrían is probably from onom. * sqRiX- w/in Gmc, and has nothing to do with PIE yx). He's hindered both by attempting to find a regular rather than optional expl. and his sometimes bizarre sequencing, as when saying: "the u: in these forms would be best explained from the zero grade of /-eXw-/" (though it seems fairly common for some linguists to posit eHu not ewH / uH > u: for some reason).
Though Lehmann says: "Evidence in one Hittite text points to a phonetic similarity with r; in this text wahnu- `turn' is confused with warnu- `burn'.", there's plenty of other ev. for X/R alt., not just in Hittite, including:
*kól-xW-mó+ > *kól-m-xWó+ > *kól-am-XWó+ > *kól-am-Xó+ > *kól-ma-Xó+
{kalmara-} H; kalmaha- = mt. Luw;
He also attempts to explain y- / 0- alt. in Gmc and Greek as from Hy-, which is wrong and unnecessary, since optionally any y > xY , and the Greek ev. is the opp. of what he suggests, showing x()y > GYy > dYzYy , not x()y > h .
>
> Since xWw > XWw ; as in cwic(u) , and XWw opt. > XWXW , either XW could > qW / RW , etc., as well as normal QW opt. > P seen in many words. This explains:
>
> * gWiXW-wó+ > * gWiXW-XWó+ > * gWiXW-RWó+ > * gWiF-RWó+ > cwifer-líc = *lively > keen/eager OE;
>
> as well as in proper names, usually in myths, such as:
>
> * d.er.-xY-wn.-kó+ = small tree/wooden thing / spear/sword >
> * d.er.-wiN-kó+ > Rw \ RXW \ RF > Tirfingr \ Tyrfingr ON; Tervingi (p) (L-trans);
>
> and
>
> * n.or.-u-XWón.+ > Narvi \ Narfi \ Naurr \ etc., as well as Nabbi ON;