[tied] Re: PIE Word Formation (2), correction

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
wrote:

>
> On 2006-04-05 09:51, P&G wrote:
>
> > If you want an example in English of the so-

called "schwebeablaut", how

> > about
> > wreak/wrought ~ work
> > That this could be inherited is more likely, since it occurs

also in Greek:

> > *(w)reg-io > rezo ~ (w)ergon)
>
> <wrought> is not inherited. It reflects OE worhte, (ge)worht, the

normal

> pret. and p.p. of <wyrcan> 'work'. The /Vrxt/ > /rVxt/ metathesis

was

> regular in Northumbrian, occasional in West Saxon, and must have

been a

> common feature of the dialectal background of the modern standard

(cf.

> bright, fright). But <wreak> (OE wrecan) is old, cf. Goth. wrikan.
>

It occurred to me once that with regular development, the forms
would have been
*bhren-, *bhron-, *bhr.n- > *brin-, *bran-, *burn-
*bhrest-, *bhrost-, *bhr.st > *brist-, *brast-, *burst-

From there on, it's a question of how one chooses to normalise the
stem:
Germ brennen, Eng burn
Dan briste, Engl burst


Torsten