[tied] Re: Bader's article on *-os(y)o

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, enlil@... wrote:

> Jens:
> > Since I cannot accept simple short /ó/ as the direct

manifestation

> > of the vowel of which /é/ is the reduced form, I need to find a

way

> > to get it to be a special form of the /é:/ which some stems
> > (like 'liver') present: I can do that in the collective:
>
> Hm, hence the denial of a fundamental pattern in IE.

I am not denying anything; on the contrary I'm addressing
everything, not only what I like.

> This is a major
> problem for your theory. The alternation of *wodr/*wednos is
> transparently attested in Hittite /wadar/ & /widenas/. So /widar/

is

> nothing but *wedó:rx with *e as the predictable unaccented

alternative

> to accented *o.

No, the root of the old collective is accented, cf. Gk. húdo:r,
levelled from *wéd-/*ud-´.

> Latin shows genitive /pedis/ for a root clearly
> otherwise in *o, as in /podium/.

Hey, podium is a Greek loanword.

> We find in Greek accusative /pod-a/
> to be compared with /pedon/ "ground". Even Hittite /sak-/ "to know"
> with its alternate form /sek-/, whether from "intensive

reduplicatives"

> or not, shows the same irrefutable pattern.
>
> So how anyone can deny the *ó/*e pattern sensibly is beyond me.

Maybe it is. Still, I have explained it in the preceding posting.
There is no immediate alternation *ó/e governed by the accent. The
weak form of the -ó- of the perfect, of the intensive and of the
reduplicated aorist is zero, not /e/. Greek pédon and péde: have
root accent, so does Hitt. pe:dan 'place' but surely one of them had
final accent, since we have Skt. padá-m, and mobility in Lith.
pe:dà 'footprint' and pé:das 'footsole'; that leads to either PIE
*ped-óm, *péd-aH2 or PIE *péd-om, *ped-áH2 with no change in the
vowel, possibly because the pair was only formed after the working
of the ablaut. - The /e(:)/ of "intensive reduplicatives" belongs to
the reduplication, not the root.


Jens