Re: elementum

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@...> wrote:

>
>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <sean@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <sean@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@> wrote:
> > > > >
> >
> > > > > Another bad etymology (but agreeing with Sean's opt. sdl. methodology) regards <elementum> as a form of <alimentum>.
> > > >
> > > > There's also elicio but elecebra (e:-e-e), and elegans or eligans (that probably (one ex. of) analogy). Opt. changes and doublets aren't forbidden by some Neogrammarian stranglehold.
> > >
> > > When vowel-harmony trumps simple weakening, as with <adagium> against <pro:digium>, <alacer> against <alipe:s>, <monumentum> against <regimentum>, etc., we are dealing with phonetic complexity, not "optional changes". Doublets like the less common <monimentum> due to analogy are easily understood. I reject the connection of <e:legans> with <lego:>, which makes no morphological sense. I think <e:legans> means 'lying out' (i.e. 'outstanding') and involves a different root, which is attested in Faliscan.
> > >
> > What phonetic complexity differentiates alacer from alipe:s in terms of a-a remaining or a-a > a-e>i ? To approx. the most important part, why offendimentum = ~knot/band of priest's cap L; not * offendementum ? Words spelled like monumentum \ monimentum are due to -i- being pronounced SOMETHING like a central I/Y (no good symbol to use) before P.
>
> Did you just P on the monument? Where?
>
> You have already suggested what differentiates <alacer> from <alipe:s>, the pre-labial environment in the latter.
>

That is ridiculous. It is regular for -a- > -e- in ALL env., it is alacer that needs the expl., found by a-a. Adding a THIRD rule, the exc. to the exc., is needlessly complex to avoid a change easily seen to be as opt. as its opp. (two similar sounds at a distance dissim., like r-r > r-l, etc.).


How about Afar : Afer or Menerva OL; Minerva L; w no preservation? Are those regular for /_r and /_n? How many exc. are you making to the first exc.?


All the doublets I gave suggest simple optionality, also:


cinis (f/m) cineris (g) = ashes L;

>

cenere It; cendre Fr;

but

*cinisia (p ?)

>

cinigia It; ceniza Sp;

in which, by your regular rules, i-i should remain, but doesn't in historical sources, but modern forms show (with rec.) 2: both i-i preserved and i-e to weakening before z.


If your regular rules were true, it would look something like:


ALL:

-a- > -e- (BUT NOT a-a (BUT NOT /_P))

-e- > -i- (BUT NOT e-e (BUT NOT /_P))

-u- > -i- (BUT NOT ALWAYS /_P))

-i- > -e- / _z (BUT NOT i-i (BUT NOT cineris ?))


In mine there are many regular rules, one irregular exception that applies opt. to V-V-V.

>
> The -i- in <offendimentum> and <regimentum> is perfectly regular.
>

Reg. by -e->-i-, irreg. by YOUR e-e-e, but reg. by no retention /_P ? I can't accept that.