Latin and Slavonic for `moon'

[Vidhyanath Rao]

Peter  wrote:

> > (me) We can't tell gneH1 from gneH3 in Sanskrit,

> I don't know what your Sanskrit is like, but I have no difficulty whatever,
> when reading Sanskrit, in telling the two roots apart.   ...
> PIE *gneh3 gives ja:na:ti  ...
> PIE *genH1  (note the different ablaut form from *gneh3 ...

I don't have any trouble telling genH1 from gneH3, but my PIE is not good
enough to say that gneH1 did not exist. There are two roots, mna: and dhma:
that use these generally except in the present stem which are mana- and
dhama-, [dhamita occurs once in RV] suggesting an alternation of menH/mneH
and dhemH/dhmeH. I was hesitant to deny that something like that could not
occur in case of genH1.

> In addition to the moderator's comments on Latin & Greek, a further
> objection to this approach is that it is very difficult to ascribe clear
> distinctions to the various present formations we find in PIE.

But the idea that present/aorist were eventive seems to be generally
accepted.

-Nath