Re: [tied] Brugmann's Law

01-10-03 12:18, Alwin K. wrote:

> Oops sorry,
> I now see that the translation 'rope' which I saw
> somewhere was wrong from Germ. Tau. So the semantical
> connection between the words is likely. Nevertheless
> the Schwebe-ablaut remains puzzling, unless we assume
> an analysis *h1er-s- (so indeed belonging with *h1er-
> 'to move').

That's why I suggested a collective noun. The collective of an s-stem
would have the nil grade of the root and the o-grade of the (stressed)
suffix in the strong cases -- just the sort of thing we need. Not
Schwebeablaut in the proper sense but the complex ablaut of a
consonantal stem involving a suffix.

> Beekes in his Introduction (p 182) seems to
> reconstruct the words as a *-(e)h2- stem, and it looks
> like he explains the absence of Brugmann by assuming
> that originally *-(e)h2-stems have had zero-grade
> suffixes as well (e.g. gen.sg. *Hros-h2-os). Perhaps
> absence of Brugmann was generalized because of these
> cases?

Perhaps, though the explanation lacks the flush of life, so to speak.

Piotr