Re: Octha or Ohta?

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:

>
> W dniu 2012-02-10 22:41, dgkilday57 pisze:
> >
> > According to Buck (OUG sec. 118), the change *sr > *fr (whence Latin
> > fr-, -br- as in <fri:gus>, <fu:nebris>, etc.) "belongs doubtless to the
> > Italic period". This makes it difficult to derive Lat. <vernus> from a
> > protoform *wesri-no-. One would expect *wesrino- > Proto-Italic
> > *wefrino- > Proto-Latin *webrino- > *webr.no- > *weberno- > Lat. *vebernus.
>
> Thanks for pointing this out! It shows that no matter how many times one
> reads one's own stuff before publication, obvious blunders are sure to
> sneak in. The article is in press and it may be too late to add the
> correction, but given the length of the publication cycle, I'll give it
> a try.
>

In a previous message:

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/post?act=reply&messageNum=66333

I derived the long e: in wæ:r = sea OE; vári ON; from rs in a similar way (from * wedun.+):

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <stlatos@...> wrote:
>

> we_dn.wó+
> we_ds.wó+
> we_d.s.wó+
> we_r.s.wó+
> we_r.s.wó+ we_r.s.yó+ dis
> we_r.s.ó+ we_r.s.yó+ dis
> we_r.r.ó+
> we_er.ó+
> wæ:ra-


Assuming the der. * wer.s.wó+ = rain > * wer.s.wr. = rainy season the changes in Latin like:

*
wer.s.wr.
wer.s.r. dis.
wer.r.
weer.

are pos.