Re: [tied] Re: IE prefix "*s"

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 13:39:20 +0000, altamix <alxmoeller@...> wrote:

>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>
>> Exactly. The same applies to schimba, where I think the /i/ first
>> arose in
>> unaccented position (inf., ptc., 1/2pl. schâimbá >
>schimbá, ptc.
>> scâimbát >
>> schimbát, 1pl. scâimbám > schimbã'm, etc.), and spread
>from there
>> to the
>> other forms.
>>
>> When /â/ was always accented, we see /âi/ instead of /i/ as
>the
>> palatalization result: pâine "bread", câine "dog". These
>forms are
>> also
>> analogical, since the palatalization spread from the plural
>pâni(i)
>>
>> pâini(i), câni(i) > câini(i).
>
>
>That is ridiculous. Which palatalisation here? Palatalisation of
>what? Of "â"?

Of /n/. Plural -i (after a single consonant) is not vocalic, but is
expressed as palatalization of the preceding consonant (buni = /bun^/).

>I guess this is just an epentetic "i" and no
>palatalisation here..

Yes, the palatalization is transformed into i-epenthesis, as it is in
habeat > *abja > aiba.

>From the pers. II sg. you will have your requested "âi". But you
>are
>making the things very complicated and I doubt following the
>changes "âi" > "iâ" or "âi" > "i" one can be right here
>since
>the "âi" if appears, it does not get lost. There a multitude of
>example where one has the group "âi" which did not reduced later
>to "i" as you like it to have in "schimba".

As usual, you forget to take the accent into account.


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