Re: [tied] Laryngeal theory as an unnatural

On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 09:04:24 +0000, "Glen Gordon"
<glengordon01@...> wrote:

>Miguel:
>>>or using complete irrelevancies like his **pk^wos based
>>>solely on Armenian
>>
>>No. Read what I said.
>
>If a case showing a zero-graded root **pkw- within its
>declensional paradigm is credibly attested in a non-Armenian
>language, then we'll talk.

The oblique *pk^wós is attested in Armenian asr, asu (Arm /a/ from
schwa secundum; p- > 0-, see Olsen p. 202) and in Slavic pIsU (Slavic
/I/ from schwa secundum). Furthermore, we have Sanskrit ks.u (not a
compound), and general IE *(p)k^wó:n "dog".

>> >However, that being so, there were instances where the loss of
>> >unstressed vowels was resisted
>>
>>So what are the rules?
>
>Therefore, I'm correct that you don't understand what I said.

"there were instances where the loss of unstressed vowels was
resisted": which instances? What are the rules?

>>There is no reason in your theory why this should not have given
>>*udnos. Cf. the collective root *udó:r, *udéns.
>
>The reason is painfully simple to any sensible IEist:
>*u is the normal zero-grade of *eu/*au/*ou, not of *we/*wa/*wo.

Samprasa:ran.a is the term used by the old Indic grammarians.

>>The genitive of *pek^u is not **pek^eus!
>
>Yes, I know about *pekuos, a thematic genitive. Thematic variants
>of these genitives were obviously created to wipe out the much
>less common *-s genitive.

The genitive of the i- and u-stems is overwhelmingly *-eis,
*-eus/*-ous. In Sanskrit, only four i-stems and seven u-stems
(Szemerényi, p. 178) have genitives in -yas or -was. Outside
Sanskrit, it's this type in *-yos, *-wos which has been all but wiped
out. It is therefore ancient and not secondary.


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