Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[SPAM] [tied] Re: Latin /a/ after labials, IE *mori

Expand Messages
  • alexandru_mg3
    ... Another clear example is that one of gWenh2- woman, wife The Nominative and Accusative forms show gWénh2- But the Obliques Forms show gWnéh2- : [gen.]
    Message 1 of 139 , Jun 4, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3" <alexandru_mg3@...> wrote:
      >
      > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@> wrote:
      > >
      > > On 2009-06-04 10:07, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
      > >
      > > > P.S. And I will come next to this supposed 'impossibility' CERH/CREH and
      > > > I will show you a flexion pattern of the same word showing this alternance.
      > >
      > > Do read Anttila first, or you'll be reinventing the wheel.
      > >
      > > Piotr
      > >
      >
      > Yes I read him, but it was you that created confusions here, putting in discussion (by intention) the Schwebeablaut ...
      >
      > Maybe you can explain dieus- forms again for everybody here regarding the vowel position inside ---> and to tell to everybody here that there is no Schwebeablaut issue regarding such forms
      > BUT we have the vowel -e- IN TWO DIFFERENT PLACES
      >
      > Again the 'general' mixture with Schwebeablaut was put in equation by you, by intention, in place to explain concretely each form ....
      >
      > Marius



      Another clear example is that one of gWenh2- 'woman, wife'

      The Nominative and Accusative forms show gWénh2-

      But the Obliques Forms show gWnéh2- :

      [gen.] gWnéh2-s
      [dat.] gWnéh2-(e)i


      So the accentual pattern is CeRH- in Nominative and CReH- for Genitive/Dative

      This clearly show you that this alternance EXISTS.

      Is this an Schwebeablaut issue, here, Piotr? For sure NOT...

      So why you have created confusions by invoking it?

      Marius
    • alexandru_mg3
      ... Shall I multiply ... Piotr, from where you know that we have a -h2- here? ...:) I hope that you will NOT START TO TELL US THAT -h2- HERE is deduced ONLY
      Message 139 of 139 , Jun 15, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
        >
        Shall I multiply
        > counterexamples? We have *woth2-aje/o- > OLat. voto: > CLat.
        > veto:/vetui.
        > Piotr


        Piotr, from where you know that we have a -h2- here? ...:)

        I hope that you will NOT START TO TELL US THAT -h2- HERE is deduced ONLY based on Latin *woth2-aje/o- > OLat. voto: , isn't it?

        Because if so (and unfortunately for you it is so :)) your example is a PURE CIRCULAR ONE:

        1. is -h2- so -h2-eye- because we have a Latin -o:/-a:re

        and in the same time:

        2. it belongs to Latin -o:,-a:re- because is -h2-eye-

        So you cannot use this example.

        Marius
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.