Re: [tied] Re: Vrddhi in sigmatic aorist

The sandhi explanation is based on Indo-Aryan analogues such as <a:-sad-> 'sit near' > 'join by sitting down' > 'approach, meet', but is hard to justify phonologically, as you note (RUKI does not normally operate across the prefixes-stem boundary). The "Winterian obstacle" is a serious problem here, since the verb root *sed- regularly yields Slavic *se^d-/*sad- (exactly as expected), while *xod- has a short vowel (lengthened only in iteratives, but that's predictable in Slavic). *XodH- is preferable, as far as I'm concerned, where *X = "something special that produces Slavic *x-/*s^-". I'd go with Miguel as far as to agree that the same explanation should account for *s^ in *s^estI < *XestI.

Piotr

----- Original Message -----
From: Sergejus Tarasovas

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 1:57 PM

Subject: [tied] Re: Vrddhi in sigmatic aorist

--- In cybalist@......, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <mcv@......> wrote: > The usual explanation is that <xodU>, <xoditi>, <s^IdU> have developed > from *sed- in combination with RUKI-generating prefixes such as u-, > pri- (u-xoditi "to (go) sit outside" -> "to go out"; pri-xoditi "to > (go) sit inside" -> "to come in", and then by analogy xoditi "to go"). I know. IMO, sandhi conditions are abused when problematic *x- < *s- is to be explained, but I can't offer anything better. > This presupposes that */sW/ gives > Slavic *x, as in <s^est'> "six". > I have of course suggested that the *x in the loc.pl. (*-sW-i ~ > *-sW-u) and the 2sg.pres.them.act. -es^I (*-e-sWi) have the same > explanation.