Re: [tied] Re: Nominative: A hybrid view

Jens:

>So let's try again. The alternation *po:d-s/*ped- (weak cases) is
>derivable from underlying *pe:d-

Prove it. The nominative and accusative shows *pod- with the
expected nominative lengthening in *po:ds. The weak cases
such as the genitive *pedos show *ped-. There is no place for
*pe:d-.

>Now, the root *H3reg^- does form a stem Skt. ra:j-, Lat. re:g-,
>but none of the paradigms we have shows any alternation.

?? Why can't you just accept the accusative case form with *hWreg-
as the default strong stem form as we find with *podm? Yes, the
nominative causes lengthening in both these roots. We needn't
be confused as you are about what-if scenarios that may or may
not be true. The most probable and simplest solution wins out.

>The fact that it forms a long-vowel athematic present may indicate that it
>*is* in fact like the root of 'foot' in the respect here of relevance.

Assuming that the verb is not a denominal using the nominative form
of the noun.

>At least the two types of tr-stems, the acrostatic *do'h3-to:r, gen.
>*do'h3-tr-s "(habitual) giver" and the hysterokinetic *d&3-te':r, gen.
>*d&3-tr-o's "(occasional) giver" (semantics and IE paradigms from Tichy,
>correcting Benveniste), which are derivable by my rules from
>*de:H3-te'r- and *deH3-te'r- respectively, show that it is not *always*
>a property of the root that determines which kind of ablaut type we get.

I don't recognize your rules. This paragraph is assumptive.


Concerning o-grade verb roots:

>I don't think there are any such verbal forms at all.

Hmm. Then what is *bHohg- for example?


= gLeN

_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail