Re: [tied] n-infix (was: Prenasalization, not ejectives cause of Wi

On 2006-09-26 14:41, Jens Elmegård Rasmussen wrote:

> I have addressed the issue in: Zur Abbauhierarchie des Nasalpräsens.
> In: H.Eichner & H..Rix (eds.), Sprachwissenschaft und Philologie.
> Jacob Wackernagel und die Indogermanistik heute. Wiesbaden 1990:
> Reichert, 188-201, esp. 195-97 on tanóti, sanóti, vanóti.

Nice to know that! I thought the problem was completely neglected.

> For Vedic
> sanóti I depart from *senH2-n-w-, which apparently lost either the
> laryngeal or the second n, yielding either *senhw- or *sennw-,
> whence, with anaptyxis and accentuation of the new vowel and zero-
> grading of unaccented vowels, either *sn.H2éw- or *sn.néw-. If
> Eichner is right in identifying Hitt. sanhuzzi 'roasts' (as *'makes
> ready, prepares') with Ved. sanóti 'reaches, wins', the PIE form was
> *sn.H2éw-. I admit it's speculative, but how else can one account
> for what we find?

On the other hand, if the identification is not correct, and if it's the
laryngeal that vanishes, the explanation of the *k^r.nu- type would be a
step closer. If cases of excessive accumulation of consonants inside a
stem, laryngeals are usually the first to be "crowded out".

Piotr