Re: [tied] Neglected alternations

From: Richard Wordingham Message: 19478
Date: 2003-03-01

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com,
Piotr Gasiorowski
<piotr.gasiorowski@...> wrote:
> It's on my list of unsolved
problems as well. There's a possible
example of *n ~ *h2 as well
(*men-/*mah2- 'think', if it's the
latter that we find in <mood>). I'm
not sure if *drem-/*drah2- belongs
here, since we also have *dreu-
'run', and since all these roots are
triconsonantal, **der- with
extensions is a plausible analysis.
>
> Piotr
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Miguel Carrasquer"
<mcv@...>
> To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2003
3:54 PM
> Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Pronouns
again
>
>
> On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 03:27:20 +0100
(MET), Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen
> <jer@...> wrote:
>
> >It may be note that PIE has other
cases of an interchange of /m/ and
/H2/.
> >One could cite the roots *gWem-
and *gWeH2- 'come, go' (combined to
a
> >paradigm in Greek baino:, eba:n);
there are also *drem-/*dreH2- 'run'
and
> >another *drem-/*dreH2- 'sleep'.
Could the form with /H2/ be pausa
> >variants? The alternation would
not be *very* different from Old
Norse
> >springa, prt. sprakk (with -kk <
*-nk < *-ng). Still, it would demand
> >something like a labiovelar
nasal, and thus does not look
particularly
> >appealing.
>
> This *m ~ *h2 alternation has been
on my to-do list for a long time,
> but so far I haven't been able to
come up with a solution that made
> sense. Jens' remarks have turned
my attention to the problem again,
> so let's have another try at
interpreting this mysterious
alternation.
>
> In principle, there are a number
of ways in which we can view the
> problem:
>
> 1) There are two roots *gWem- and
*gWah2- (etc.), and they are
> etymologically unrelated. The
similarity in meaning and shape is
> accidental.
>
> This possibility is hard to
disprove, but I can reject it by an
appeal
> to "gut feeling": I "just know"
that *gWem- and *gWah2- are related.
> On the other hand, I can accept
this possibility for now in its
> "agnostic formulation": Until a
good solution is found for the
> alternation *m ~ *h2, the two
roots *gWem- and *gWah2- (etc.),
must be
> treated provisionally as
etymologically unrelated.
>
> 2) There was a root *gWeX-, which
split into *gWem- and *gWeh2-
> depending on position/context.
This is Jens' speculation above, and
> the area where I have been
searching on and off for a solution,
in
> vain. Jens' suggestion of
something like a labiovelar nasal
(*ngW ?)
> might work, but has its problems.
In itself, I have no trouble
> accepting the presence of
labiovelar *ng in (pre-)PIE, and my
personal
> theories about pre-PIE phonology
would make the existence of a
> labialized variant *ngW
unavoidable (I believe there was
stage when
> _all_ pre-PIE consonants had
labialized variants). If *nW gave
*m in
> certain contexts, as I believe,
then *ngW could also have given *m.
> Unfortunately, I cannot find a
pathway from *ngW to *h2.
Does it help that syllable-initial
velar nasals have become /h/ in some
Southern Thai dialects? Voiceless
velar nasals (or /hN/) have often
become /h/ in Tai dialects
generally.
Richard.
End---of---Message-----
If we
> reconstruct the root for "blood"
with a labiovelar nasal as
> *h1ésh2angW-, then the result in
final position is *h1ésh2r.gW (Skt.
> asr.k), not +h1ésh2&2.
>
> There is a variant of possibility
(2) where the proto-phoneme *X is
> replaced by a consonant cluster:
>
> 2bis) *gWem- and *gWeh2- derive
from a root *gWeXY (where *X is
> perhaps *m, and *Y perhaps *h2),
which gave sometimes *gWem-,
> sometimes *gWeh2-.
>
> But this (at least for a cluster
*mh2) simply does not work. We can
> explain the loss of *m before *h2
in certain contexts (see below), but
> then we would expect an
alternation *gweh2- ~ *gWemh2- which
is simply
> not what we see. There is no
+gWemh2-
>
> Some more possibilities:
>
> 3) The root is *gWe-, and *-m and
*-h2 are suffixes (root extensions).
>
> 4) The root is *gWem- and *-h2 is
a suffix / root extension.
>
> 5) The root is *gWeh2- and *-m is
a suffix / root extension.
>
> Possibility number three is
somewhat similar to number one. It
is the
> best "agnostic" solution if your
gut feeling tells you thet *gWem