[YG Conlang Archives] > [romconlang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Firstly, for reasons I do not understand, Palmer indicates the stem as /*dye:u-/ (with a long diphthong) when talking about the nominative and accusative forms, but /*dyew-/ when talking about the genitive. I'm not sure why; I had thought the stem was a simple short diphthong: /eu/. Wasthere a different length in the nom. and acc.? It looks like /*gwou-/ also had a different diphthong length in the nominative .....
This is a common pattern for root nouns in PIE. Note also po:t-s vs pod- ("foot") without diphthong, where it is regular (recomposed from **po:s)
Similarly, Palmer gives the nominative form /*dye:us/ and says the diphthong's second vowel was lost in the accusative to produce /dye:-m/,then creating a remodelled paradigm as Muke indicates with nom. dies, acc. diem, etc. Meanwhile, Palmer give the example of the genitive form/*dyewes/ going on to produce /iovis/ (apparently although PIE /ew/generally goes to /u:/ in Latin, the presence of /w/ near /e/ can cause /e/ to become /o/ as for example, in the case of /*newes/ > /novus/, /*newem/ > /novem/).
Actually *ew/ became /ow/ first, then both (whether original *ew or *ow) became /u:/. I spose environment dictated whether it went all the way. [/ew/ in Latin is apparently never original)
And a paradigm that messy would be enough to make anyone pick a new stem
:) Another problem perhaps was the nominative /i:us/ would have been too
much like /*yewes-/ > /i:us-/ ("law")?
Or *yu:-s- > iu:s "broth" :) *Muke! -- http://frath.net/ E jer savne zarjￜ mas ne http://kohath.livejournal.com/ Se imnￜ koone'f metha http://kohath.deviantart.com/ Brissve mￜ kolￜ adￜ.