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

On Wed, 24 Jul 2002 03:38:59 +0200 (MET DST), Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen
<jer@...> wrote:

>The instrumental morpheme *-bhi is certainly founded on the plural *-bhis,
>so -eaw looks *very much* as a formation based on instr.pl. -eawk'. That
>strips -eaw of its probative power without force and leaves -o- visible in
>the singular only, and -a- visible in the plural (with its accessory)
>only. And that makes it *very* likely that the -o- of the loc.sg. -oj^ is
>a stem-forming *-o- and nothing else. I completely fail to see the wisdom
>in taking the instrumental in -eaw to be based on the nominative. Is that
>ever done in this language?

I should have said: "based on the nominative-accusative". In knaw
(I.pl. kanambk`). Arguably in the o-stems (-ow < -o + -bhi), where
the PIE instrumental plural was *-o:is.

>I am seriously challenged if I am to see a form in -oj^ which, for all the
>versatility you would like to ascribe to it, is nowhere an instrumental,
>as evidence for how the specific form of the IE instrumental was. Is there
>an easy way to get "pre-Armenian [...] I. -oj^" to give up its
>instrumental function? I notice that you are not suggesting widening of
>the function of the instrumental (as in Gothic, where the functions of the
>old instrumental are also carried by the socalled dative), but a complete
>displacement of the instrumental form to serve some other case functions
>and only those. I find that most unsatisfactory.

The Armenian ins.sg. nowhere continues the PIE ins.sg., so a complete
displacement of the instrumental form to serve some other case
functions is perfectly possible.

>I regard the correspondence between Skt. -aya: and OCS -ojoN as the joint
>reflex of what would be *-aya: in Brugmannian terms (the BSl. nasal is
>secondary, from rudimentary *-mi from the other stam classes).

What's rudimentary *-mi? *-aya: + *-mi would have given *-oyamI in
Slavic. I would rather compare the Skt. Loc. in -a:ya:m, where we
have the same *-m as in Slavic.

>If the
>instr.sg. was always end-stressed in mobile paradigms, i.e. ended in
>full-grade -VH1 even in PD words, the devi: type would have *-iH2-VH1.
>Now, if that ending were to influence the old form in *-aH2-H1 (which
>survives as a variant in Vedic and elsewhere), how could it produce a form
>in *-aya: ? I'd say it could do just that by adding *-iH2VH1 after the
>*-a- of the old form

But why -a- and not -ah2-?

>, so that the new ending replaced *-H2H1. That would
>produce *-ayH2VH1, which, in case the -V- is -e-, would give PIE
>*-ayH2aH1; and, if the -V- is -o-, as I have been inclined to assume, the
>rsult would be PIE *-ayH2oH1. Both forms would produce IIr. -aya: and,
>with added nasal, OCS -ojoN. The process appears to have started in the
>pronouns.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...