Re: [tied] Timing of ablaut

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 17:05:29 +0200 (MET DST), Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen
<jer@...> wrote:

>On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 23:02:35 +0000, elmeras2000 <jer@...> wrote:
>>
>> >--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>> >
>> >If stéar (stéa:r) is Proto-Greek /stá:(j)ar/ or /sté:(j)ar/ (thus
>> >Frisk), then it does not show anything about the quality of the
>> >laryngeal: IE *stá:yH3-r or *sté:yH3-r would be expected to produce
>> >this result. The lengthened grade would be as in *yé:kW-r 'liver'.
>>
>> I was thinking of *steh2yr. > *sta:yar, which explains the length and the
>> a-quality in a straightforward way.
>
>Is *yé:kW-r not straightforward?

In my analysis, not really. As you know, I consider the straightforward
lengthened grade of the pre-PIE vowels **a and **u to give PIE *o, so that
*yé:kWr can only be a straightforward lengthened grade if the original
vocalism was **i. In the case of *yé:kWr, the **i vocalism is confirmed by
the alternation *l ~ *y (Germanic liver, Armenian leard), pointing to
palatalized *l^ due precisely to *i: in the strong root. [The weak root,
e.g. G. *li:pu-án-a:s should have given *(l/y)ikWnós, preserved in Irish
and Slavic in the meaning "fish roe", but otherwise replaced by analogical
*yekWnós].

>And is there a noun-forming suffix *-yer-?

I would analyze it as *stah2i- (probably *stah2- + *-i) with the noun
forming suffix *-(V)n-: *stah2i-an > *sta:yr.

>> Apart from Greek stéar, there is no
>> other indication about the nature of the laryngeal in this word.  All
>> things considered, I'd say Skt. stya:yate: "gerinnt, wird hart" is more
>> likely to be an *a:y-formation (denominative from *stih2ah2 "etwas
>> dichtes") than a causative.  The connection with *steh2-, as suggested in
>> EIEC, seems appropriate for the semantics of the cognate group.
>
>If IE *stói-no-s/-na-H2 seen in Goth. stains 'stone' and Slavic ste^na (b)
>'wall' is "some made of compact stuff", the lost laryngeal will have to
>have been rounded, since the derivative has reduced *-mn- to *-n-, not
>*-m-. This law is not completely flawless, but it come very, very close to
>being just that.

But not all -no stems come from earlier -mno-. If I may quote "The noun in
Biblical Armenian". p. 834: "A suffix *-no- has at least two potential
sources: it may represent the thematicization of a basic stem or word form
ending in *-n (origial n-stem or heteroclitic), or it may be a secondary
derivative of a *-men- stem, i.e. *-mno- > *-no-". Now if stéa:r is from a
heteroclitic **stah2i-(a)n-, as I argued above, then **stah2i-nos/
*stah2inah2 is a thematized heteroclitic.

>It is also part of the evidence
>that the same root forms Slavic te^sto and OIr. taes, Welsh toes 'dough'
>pointing to *taisto- which may be a perfect superlative of an adjective,
>IE *táy(H)-isto- 'most compact' showing that any a-timbre seen in forms of
>this root does not have to come from the laryngeal, for the root had /a/
>itself. -

I would argue that the /a/ timbre comes from *h2 (*stah2i-t > *staih2t-),
cf. also Greek staís/staîs, staitós "dough" (Boisacq also connects OHG
deismo, OE thae:sma as *tais-tm-).

>I do not see how *stih2ah2 can be derived from *steh2-.

**stah2-y-áh2 should have given *sth2i(y)ah2, but perhaps also, with
metathesis, *stih2ah2.

>>
>> >The root 'to swell' is posited as *tewH2- in LIV, albeit on quite
>> >slender basis (sáos 'safe' < *twawo- < *tuH2-ewo- as per Peters).
>>
>> If it's the etymon of so:ma, it must be *tewh3-.  I would consider that
>> stronger evidence than sáos.
>
>You would of course, or else your favourite idea falls on its face.

Well, what about Arm. t`oyn-k` "poison" (*teuH-no-) in the light of the
mn-rule you mentioned above?


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