Re: Evidence for Nostratic? (was Re: Proto-Uralic?)

From: "Rob Haden" <magwich78@...>
> Very interesting.  It appears that Proto-Latin or Proto-Italic had a
> complicated vowel-change scheme which depended heavily on the following
> consonant.  All the above changes could be explained by having all short
> vowels in medial (unstressed, since Proto-Italic apparently had a regular
> word-intial accent) syllables reduce to schwa /&/.  However, what
> is 'dark /l/'?
Sihler's book calls it "l pinguis" (§176a), the velar allophone of /l/.  It
appears before all vowels but /i(:)/, before all consonants but /l/, and
finally.

> I have that book too, but I never noticed that passage!  But then again,
> I've never read it from front to back, LOL.
I did :x)  It was fun, so.

> So basically, I think that earlier *genes, *corpes became *genos, *corpos
> on basis of analogy with masculine o-stems.  Genitive singular *geneses >
> generis, but *corpeses > *corperis > corporis.  The question is, why was
> generis kept that way, but *corperis became corporis analogically?  Perhaps
> the former was more common than the latter?
Well, there's no accounting for analogy :x)

    *Muke!
--
http://frath.net/