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

From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 40769
Date: 2005-09-27

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 13:57:04 +0000, Rob
<magwich78@...> wrote:

>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 19:35:04 +0200 (CEST), Mate Kapoviæ
>> <mkapovic@...> wrote:
>>
>> > Just a quick thought - couldn't the a/a: in OI be secondary to
>> > a/a: in cases like pa:t, pá:dam, padás or such? Wouldn't the
>> > pattern a:/i be a wee bit too aberrant?
>>
>> It's common enough in verbs, but you're right that I can't
>> think of any examples of a: ~ i alternation in nouns.
>
>There seems to be an analogy to this in the Germanic languages, where
>nominal morphology was more subject to levelling than verbal. The
>only alternations in the former are the umlaut plurals (e.g. English
>_foot_ ~ _feet_ (< *fo:t ~ *fo:tiz), German _Hand_ ~ _Händer_ (<
>*hand ~ *handiz)). However, there are plenty of alternations in the
>latter, namely between the present, preterite, and passive
>participles of "strong" verbs (e.g. English _sing_ ~ _sang_ ~
>_sung_). Does this behavior approach a rule in human language?

Verbal morphology tends to be more complex than nominal.

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