Re: [tied]

----- Original Message -----

From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2001 8:35 PM

Subject: Re: [tied] <pir>

On Sat, 10 Mar 2001 18:32:38 +0100, "Piotr Gasiorowski"
<gpiotr@...> wrote:

>> The form *pe:r is often thought to reflect *per-r (thus in the EIEC) or *per-n with compensatory length, though is could equally well represent the bare root *per-.

> But why shouldn't the -n be part of the root?

 

Oblique forms with a nasal extension to n-less Nom.sgs are not unknown, e.g. OInd. drunás (beside droh. < *drous), Gk. dóratos ~ doúratos, as if from *dórw-n-tos (beside dourós < *dorwós), Hit. sius, Gen. siunas. The reconstruction *per-r is a little suspect as far as I'm concerned (I'd expect a different vowel pattern in a Root-r/-(V)n- heterocliton) and as for *per-n, I'm not convinced such a form could underlie Hit. pir (any similar examples?). Anyway, I'm not saying that the *-n can't have been part of the original stem; I just admit the possibility that it wasn't.

> The change l > r (in this case, pVl > pVr) in Egyptian is to be dated to the beginning of the Middle Kingdom, ca. 2000 BC., a bit too late.

 

I am aware that according to current revisions Egyptian <3> was originally a rhotic (uvular [R] or emphatically trilled [rr]) according to one camp of Egyptologists, or some kind of lateral according to the other camp; but the interpretation of <r> as [l] is new to me. What is your authority for that (and for the date)? What is the evidence for a lateral rather than, say, a tapped [r]?

 

Piotr