Re: fortis , f- >>

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

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

> > A plausible parallel is Lat. <po:mum> 'fruit', for which Umb. <Puemune> dat. sg. 'to Pomonus' requires an Italic stem *powemo- 'fruitful'. This can be taken as containing the /o/-grade of the root *peu- 'to propagate one's kind, procreate' whose zero-grade implemental noun *putlo- 'implement of procreation, offspring, son' is reflected as Skt. <putra->, Osc. acc. sg. <puklum>.
> >
> > Formed like *powemo-, Itc. *row(H)emo- 'expansive, broad' would apply to the wide part of a river where fording is feasible, and <Ro:ma> would simply be the fem. sg. of this adjective.
> >

Where is -emo- found in languages in which it would be clear? What is found is -imo- or -i:mo- ( : -ino- or -i:no- adj.):

hálme: = brine G; sólymas = brine Lith;

gna:rus = knowing L; * gnó:ros

>>

gnó:rimos = well-known / familiar G;


Since there's ev. of O-U -ino- > L -no-, it's likely O-U -imo- > L -mo-. If so, and it happened in po:mo-, it could be from:

* pey-xY+

pya:- \ pi:- pínvate = fatten/swell V S;
páyas- = plenty/milk? V S; payah- = milk Av;
pí:o:n G; pí:van- = fat V S;
penus = food supply L; penas = food/fodder Lith;
póa: \ póia: Dor = grass G; pe:va = meadow Lith;

if * poy-xYi-mo+ > * poyimo+ > * po:imo+ > * po:mo+ OR * pu:mo+ in L, it could work. I don't know any ex. of what would happen in O-U, esp. since penus shows met., but it seems it could work.

> > Beside <ro:bus> and <abdo:men>, other examples of prelabial -o:- for std. Lat. -u:- are <bo:bus> for <bu:bus> dat./abl. pl. 'to/with cattle' (from *bovibus; the noun has b- from *gW- and is an early borrowing from P-Itc.),
>
>
> But the opp. is seen in octo:br- > octubre Sp. There's also no:dus > nudo , which makes it unlikely that o:P is the start (or only thing that changed). I don't know why o: / u: alt. would be more regular than o / u or e / i in other words.
>

There's also:

gro:ma \ gru:ma = measuring rod L; gno:me: = ~ means of knowing G;

which makes 4 ex. of opt. o: > u: / _P (dep. on the currently unknown history of hu:ma:nus), and 1 not by P. I don't think anything but opt. o: > u: AND opt. u: > o: (often by P) can be proven.


Since ro:bus is called rustic, like other words << O-U, I'd say the ou > o: in it is likely not L.