Re: [tied] The phonetic value of PIE *h3 and the 'drink' root.

On Wed, 17 Jul 2002, Miguel Carrasquer wrote:

>
> I believe I have found evidence for the regular loss of *y (*i)
> immediately preceding or following a stressed thematic vowel, which
> would also explain **pi-ph3-é-t(i) for expected *pi-ph3y-é-t(i).  I'm
> thinking in particular of the eh2(a:)-stems, from thematic vowel +
> *-ih2, with e.g. Nsg *-eh2 (> -a:) for expected *-o-yh2.  Another form
> is the o-stem NAV dual in *-eh3 (> -o:(u)) for expected *-o-yh3.  With
> *y before the thematic vowel we have the reduplicated (causative)
> aorist, where the causative suffix *(p)éy-e/o- appears in the zero
> grade as *-(p)-é- instead of expected *(p)y-é- (e.g. á-ji-jñi-p-a-t <
> **(h1e)-g^i-g^nh3-py-%'-t, therefore also sis.vapas < *si-swep-é-s <
> *si-sw(e)p-y-%'-s).  [where *% is the thematic vowel before it split
> into *e and *o]
>
> If the loss of *y is regular before a stressed thematic vowel, then
> the Greek aorist épion (*h1e-ph3i-é/ó-) must be either secondary
> (Jens) or it must be derived instead from *h1e-pih3-é/ó- (Piotr).

I believe the underlying forms are here based on nothing but wishful
thinking. I see no evidence that a:-stems (made from thematic stems) and
"i:-stems" (made from athematic stems) are identical i underlying
structure. Give me a rule that explains the coming and going of -p- in IE,
not Sanskrit alone, and I'll take it under advisement. Greek épion is no
more secondary as Greek aorists at large, for the 3pl would have been
*pH3i-ént with that structure in any case. To my knowledge, there are no
cases supporting or disproving a deveopment of initial /b-/ from *pH3-, so
perhaps the initial is okay.

jens