I had discovered a new law.
I named it "Russian law".
You may rename it as is good in your eyes.
It says that a PIE laryngeal /h₃/, and possibly /h₂/, turns into /z/ in Satem languages. (compare Cowgill's law + Grimm's law + satemization).
People before me thought, that zn' is isolated Slavic suffix. It is wrong.
The first part /z/ is a laryngal. The correct unisolated suffixe is n'.

жизнь (žiznʹ) a life PIE gʷeyh₃-.
болезнь (boléznʹ) a disease PIE bʰelh₂-
and so on
You are to bring it to mind.
I want go to bed.

Examples of simple satemization

Proto-Slavic *zǫbъ PGmc *kambaz
Proto-Slavic *zьrno PGmc *kurną
Proto-Slavic *znati PGmc *knāan
Proto-Slavic *(j)azъ PGmc *ek
Proto-Slavic *melzivo PGmc *meluks

  • 3
    Where is the question? – LjL Nov 11 '20 at 0:23
  • 2
    This isn't an appropriate place to submit new linguistics research. If you are confident in your law, please write it up and submit it to a linguistics journal. – curiousdannii Nov 12 '20 at 3:24

I'm afraid there's a serious problem with your new "sound law".
Apparently, bolezn' is derived from the verb bol-et' and there's no *H2 in that root *bol- < *bhol- plus the stative -eH1- "to be sick, painful".
How do you explain that the verb zhit' "to live" from the same root has no -z-?
What are the conditions of your "sound law"? When does it occur?

  • 1
    The verb form doesn't have a sonorant. see also боязнь *bojaznь fear bʰeyh₂-. How does cowgill's law explain that the Gothic qius "alive" from the root *kwikwaz has no -k-? I don't realy have enough time to complex analysis. I don't know precise conditions of the law. I spend a fair amount of time to formulate answer in English. – james Nov 11 '20 at 9:52
  • en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/bolěti. Possibly from Proto-Indo-European *bʰleh₂w- (Ancient Greek φλαῦρος (phlaûros, “bad, inferior”), Old Norse blauðr (“timid”)) alongside *bʰelh₂-. – james Nov 11 '20 at 9:54
  • I believe this at least deserves the attention of specialists. – james Nov 11 '20 at 9:59
  • 1
    Slavic bol-et' cannot derive from *bhleH2w- * obviously *. It derives from *bhol- plus a stative suffix -eH1-. – Arnaud Fournet Nov 11 '20 at 10:02

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.