Remerciez-le!

Remerciez @Admin pour avoir partagé cet document gratuitement, de la manière la plus simple, en partageant sur les réseaux sociaux.

A look over lat umerus pdf

A Look over Lat umerus th WeCIEC UCLA November ?? Stefan Hoe er hoe er fas harvard edu ? The dilemma The PIE reconstruction of the word for ? shoulder ? hx omeso-A Lat umerus - m Umbr loc sg uze onseE hx ómso- Ved á ?sa- m Gk m B PGmc amsa- Goth acc pl amsans Arm owsC Toch A es B ?ntseD Umbr loc sg uze onseE A Walde Hofmann II IEW de Vaan Weiss B - ómsV- Att -Ion - - not ??- - is the product of regular sound change as in ? m ? revel ? Ved ?á ?sa- m ? praise ? k ómso- cf Durante apud Peters n LIV s v k eNs- n Hackstein f The expected Aeol outcome - - can be seen in ? ?- ? ? on the shoulders ? v l in Theocr C The development o u before a nasal is regular cf cownr ? knee ? g ónu and Schmitt f D The Toch words cf the seminal treatment in Hilmarsson ? seem to presuppose a hx ?mso- or h emso- see below However a dual hx omsoh oms ? n ? PT ? ns ? n? with ?n? as the dual marker would have constituted a possible environment for the phenomenon known as ?-umlaut by which PT ? ns ? n? ?ns ? n? whence TB ?ntsne verse a ?tsane prose TA es? ? from which the singular TB ?ntse TA es was backformed analogically remodeled I am unsure however why the umlaut-causing ? ?C- was shortened to -? - in TB in TA a threesyllabic PT ?ns ?n? would have undergone ?? Vokalbalance ? to es? ? anyway Incidentally the same development can be assumed for podyoh ? the two feet ? cf Hilmarsson PT p? yy ? n? p ?yy ? n? p ?yy? n? TB paine TA pe ? In any case an analogical explanation of the ?rst vowel of ?ntse is also possible cf Peters f note I plan to take a closer look over the Toch ? shoulder ? on another occasion E Umbr loc sg uze IIb onse VIb ? in umero ? can apparently continue either hx omes e i or hx oms e i cf Meiser See also below note N B Hitt gen sg a-na-a ?- ?a-a ? ?a-a ? KUB iii ? lower part of the back ? does not belong here cf Kloekhorst s v Topic of this talk how to account for hx omeso- Lat umerus next to hx ómso- all others I am indebted to Francesco Burroni Jay Jasano ? Martin Peters Jeremy Rau and Zachary Rothstein-Dowden for precious comments and advice but no endorsement of any speci ?c ideas is hereby implied C ? Two unattractive solutions Two di ?erent lexemes hx omeso- and hx ómso- ? This is obviously not very attractive Regular development of hx ómso- Lat umerus This assumption implies the insertion of an anaptyctic vowel in the