Re: [tied] Re: Prenasalization, not ejectives cause of Winter's law?

On 2006-09-30 18:36, tgpedersen wrote:

> Let me remind you of your ingenious emendation of *gWih3w-e/o-
> "live" to a reduplicated *gWigW-e/o-.

*gWí-gWw-e/o-, to be precise.

> You ascribe that to
> dissimilation, but note that the *gWigW- part violates the root
> constraint against roots of the form *DeD-.

The constraint, which is dissimilatory anyway, didn't affect transparent
compounds and reduplications. For exaple, the aorist root *doh3-
produced the reduplicated present *di-dóh3-ti/*dé-d(h3)-n.ti, and the
perfect of *deik^- was *de-dóik^-e, etc. But I agree that in an obscured
reduplication, no longer regarded as related to something structurally
simpler, root-internal constraints would possibly have applied.

> This is interesting,
> since it might give an insight into how PIE dealt with
> 'perpetrators' which broke the rule, whether they were loan or
> composition. In other words, from /gW/ you might get /w/ and /h3/.
> So was it once *stergW- that was hit by something? Does Lat.
> stercus "manure" have something to do with it?

Not impossible, but why was it hit? There's no other media in sight.

Piotr