From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 14053
Date: 2002-07-17
>On Wed, 17 Jul 2002, Miguel Carrasquer wrote:In my view, they have. The feminine suffix was **-ih2. The pertinent
>
>>
>> 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.
> in closed syllable: *íC1#, *íC1C2 (at least for C1 = *h2)2) [unstressed]
>Give me a rule that explains the coming and going of -p- in IE,The causative suffix is in origin the verb *ey-e-ti (Hitt. iyami "ich
>not Sanskrit alone, and I'll take it under advisement.
>Greek épion is noThe point is that é in *pH3i-ént is not the thematic vowel, which I
>more secondary as Greek aorists at large, for the 3pl would have been
>*pH3i-ént with that structure in any case.