Re: ka and k^a [was: [tied] *kW- "?"]

On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 15:54:34 -0700 (PDT), glen gordon
<glengordon01@...> wrote:

>Piotr:
>> The underlying long vowel in this word could perhaps
>> be dispensed with if the *a vocalism had no zero
>> grade; then *Hna:s would owe its long vowel to the
>> normal nom.sg. lengthening, and the weak stem *Hnas-
>> etc. plus the total absence of *Hn.s- would
>> represent the expected state of things.
>
>And what about:
>
> nom *h2neh2s (> *na:s)
> acc *h2neh2sm (> *na:sm)
> gen *h2nasos (> *nasos)
>
>With such a paradigm, the odd alternation would
>cause some dialects to use weak stem *h2nas- for
>all cases (hence short vowel) while in others,
>the long vowel of the lost laryngeal would become
>the standard. Does that work?

No. Vocalized */&2/ does not equal */a/. The weak stem is
nas- (not *nis-) in Old Indic, therefore there cannot have
been a laryngeal between the /n/ and the /s/.

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