Re: [tied] Verb extensions

There are other examples, e.g. *ten-, *tend- 'extend, stretch', *k^weit-, *k^weid- 'glitter; white, shining', *sal-, *sald- 'salt', *kau-, *kaud- 'strike, hew', etc. Of course if the *d-extension has been a productive process in PIE, we'd call *-d- a suffix.

Piotr

----- Original Message -----
From: Glen Gordon

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2002 6:21 AM

Subject: Re: [tied] Verb extensions

Piotr: >The 'bend' --> 'know, see' link seems rather arbitrary to >me, but *g^Heu- (well-attested especially in Greek, Armenian and >Indo-Iranian) and *g^Heud- (a "western IE" root) have the same central >meaning and the "extension" >analysis is accordingly uncontroversial. But... What if *gHeu- and *gHeud- are not actually related to each other at all because there never was a *-d- extension? One can find a pair of words in any language with the same beginning and even with similar meanings but they are red herrings without a common origin. I'm suspecting that *gHeu- and *gHeud- might not actually be related to each other (just as "yes" and "yen" aren't related to each other) but rather that they are similar looking words with similar phonetics that have different prehistoric origins. Granted, IE is special in that verbs in fact do have "extensions" such as *-eu- and *-ax-. While the latter endings seem real enough, I don't see anything showing that *-d- was truely a real extension other than via overly mathematical morphology and idle hypothesis. Am I wrong or are there many examples of *-d- that perhaps I'm unaware of?