Re: [tied] IE genitive

On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, Sergejus Tarasovas wrote:

> > There are not very many mutually unrelated suffixes in IE, so
> > there is no sufficient basis on which to disqualify one that
> > does not look pretty. I agree that the morpheme of the
> > s-aorist is contained in the *-sk^e/o-. This is patently the
> > present type that originally belonged to the s-aorist. This
> > is shown by pairs such as Ved. prcchati/apra:ksam,
> > yacchati/aya:msam, Lat. pascor/Hitt. pahs-, Lat.
> > cogno:sco:/Hitt. ganeszi, Ved. icchati/Lith.íes^kau (with
> > acute reflecting s-aorist lengthened grade), and some more.
>
> I know that you don't subscribe to the (Kortland's and other's, probably
> majority) view that the laryngeals and Winter's lengthening are the only
> source for the Balto-Slavic acute and add at least a lengthened grade to
> the set; but since the issue is so controversial, your addition cannot
> be used as an argument discussing other issues, can it?

Not generally, but in a case like this one it certainly can. Skt. icchaïti
has zero-grade as expected in an sk-present. That is certainly not the
case with Lith. iïes^k-o- (older -a-), Slav. is^c^e- also with acute.
The short -i- of icchati precludes a laryngeal, so the acute tone cannot
be ascribed to a prestage with "*HeyHs-"; nor can it be Winter's Law since
there is no voiced stop in it; it can however easily be *H2e:ys-, the
expected lengthened grade of *H2eys-. The example is even so good as to be
decisive: the Dehnstufe-to-circumflex theory is simply wrong.

Jens