Dear Cybalists:
The explanation of the variation between *weg^h-
and *wog^h- can be simply explained.
The durative required a stress-accent on the
root-vowel. Therefore, all forms showing /e/ represented, at one time, durative
*wég^h-
The punctual required stress-accent on the next
syllable. Therefore, all forms showing /o/ represented, at one time, punctual
*weg^h-'-, which became *wog^h-'-.
The change of vowel-quality was changed by an
interaction of stress and tonal accent.
Pat
PATRICK C. RYAN | PROTO-LANGUAGE@...
(501) 227-9947 * 9115 W. 34th St. Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 USA
WEBPAGES: PROTO-LANGUAGE: http://www.geocities.com/proto-language/
and PROTO-RELIGION:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803/proto-religion/indexR.html
"Veit ec at ec hecc, vindgá meiði a netr
allar nío,
geiri vndaþr . . . a þeim meiþi, er mangi veit,
hvers hann af
rótom renn." (Hávamál 138)
----- Original Message -----From: Piotr GasiorowskiSent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 11:44 AMSubject: Re: [tied] e/oBecause they originally carried sentence accent. It's a matter of relative chronology. Nouns like *wog^Hos were formed from verbs like *weg^He- at a rather early time, when accent-to-quality rules were still productive. Denominal verbs like *wog^Heje-, on the other hand, are relatively young and so preserve the vocalism of their bases. I haven't got a good theory about the origin of *-o-presents including the stative conjugation, but ask again later -- I'll think of something :)Piotr----- Original Message -----From: Glen GordonSent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 4:21 PMSubject: Re: [tied] e/oWait a minute. I need clarification. Are you suggesting that *esti,
for example, has e-vocalism because of being unstressed in a typical
IE sentence while verbs with -o- (cf.stative) are that way because
of being deverbal nouns? That doesn't make sense. Then the question
still becomes: Why do all these deverbal nouns have "o" in the first
place?
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.