Re: [tied] PIE *h3 and PPIE **n

From: Glen Gordon
Message: 5043
Date: 2000-12-13

>But an optional (C) [i.e. *-n(C) > *-r(C)] wouldn't hurt >(considering
>Ved. �srk "blood" or y�krt "liver").

I will say again, -k (as well as -t) are secondarily added. The
reconstructed IE forms for "blood" and "liver" both end in *-r and are given
no ending, Miguel. Get out a Hittite dictionary. You will see no -k's or
-t's attached. This doesn't exist outside IndoIranian.

>Toch A Toch B
>
>active present
>-m -u, -w
>-t -t(o)
>-s. -m.
>-m�s -m(o)
>-c -cer
>-�c -m.
>[...]
>active preterit
>-wa: -wa
>-s.t -sta
>-0 -0
>-m�s -m(o)
>-s -s(o)
>-r -r, -re

Right, the 3pp active preterite /-r/ could be a potential catalyst for the
purely TochB form -cer. Is *-te:r your own reconstruction or is it actually
reconstructed by experts? Where else is this *-te:r attested? (Probably
Armenian again :P) We can't even attribute a common -cer form to the
Tocharian branch so why must we overturn standard IndoEuropean
reconstructions and modify a working Heteroclitic Rule just because of one
deviant form. Honestly, I don't understand your reasoning.

Concerning **suHn^us:
>>The *-n- in *suxnu- is a verbal infix seen a million times before
>>(*sux-n-u-) while *-yo- is another very common ending derived from >>the
>>relative pronoun *yos. It is attached to many nouns. There is no >>**-yu-
>>ending
>
>Exactly.

Good. Then you will abandon the **n^ fantasy.

>>and even so, where else is /huios/ attested?
>
>Tocharian A <se>, B. <soy> (< *soius < *suius). Maybe Armenian ><ustr>
>(influenced by <dustr> "daughter").

Ignoring /ustr/ for many reasons, how can we derive *-u- out of /se/ &
/soy/? And surely you would want it to derive from **suxyus, if anything,
not **suius. There is no IE verb *sui-, Miguel! The verb is *seux-. Again,
there is no justification for the *-y- in such a senseless form as **suxyus.
I am thinking of forfeiting this conversation because it is clear that you
are more interested in supporting anarchistic versions of IE.

>>There is no **yem- like you expect with your "dual-state" rule.
>
>There is.

Perhaps in a conlang dictionary or amongst friends at a Star Trek convention
but we're talking about competantly reconstructed PIE roots. I have never
seen this root reconstructed anywhere, so it must have arisen from your own
flightful whim.

1. Does this **yem- involve more than one or two obscure roots
from obscure languages like your over-used Armenian?
2. Can you prove that **yem- is not just a later variant of *em-
but a word worthy to be reconstructed in IE itself?
3. Is Piotr and/or others on this list in agreement?

- gLeN

_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com