Re: [tied] Nose [was: PIE *HRHV ...]

On 2007-03-20 02:14, alexandru_mg3 wrote:

> Piotr, it's you not me that have problems here with this a:/a that
> doesn't lead to anything:
>
> Please try to clarify the things before to postulate this strong-
> a:/weak-a pattern:
>
> What was the Pie Root here, in you opinion, if no laryngeal was
> inside?

*Hna:s-, with an underlyingly long vowel. I mean _underlyingly_ long,
not just lengthened in the nom.sg.

> a) *Hnas is impossible (not due to a, that I put away) but because
> the zero grade Hn.s will give PIIr. *Has, etc...

"Weak" doesn't equal "zero". The weak grade of *Hna:s- is *Hnas-, just
as the weak counterpart of *we:k^- (in the Narten present verb meaning
'want') is *wek^-, and the weak counterpart of *me:ms- is *mems- in the
declension of the 'meat' word. The *o(:)/*e pattern of acrostatic nouns
(like *nókWt-s, gen. *nékWt-s) also has a full vowel in the weak cases.
It's hard to say if roots with fundamental short *a ever reduced it to
zero (the evidence is scarce), but it doesn't matter for the 'nose' word.

> b) ...and I hope you will not propose *Hna:s ...as the basic root
> because this is a lengthened-grade not a root

That's precisely what I propose (well, the reconstruction isn't just
mine, of course). Why can't a root have a lengthened vowel as its basic
vocalism? We often see that in acrostatic nouns and verbs. Some nouns
had even generalised long-vowel forms by the time of the breakup of PIE
-- *h3re:g^- 'king' is the best-known example. Don Ringe (2006) lists
*na:s-/*nas- (unjustifiably omitting the initial laryngeal) among
examples of acrostatic stems.

> c) also you cannot propose an s-stem (see *Hneh2-s of Lubotsky))
> without to suppose a laryngeal...because a root Hna(:)- is a non-
> sense too....

And of course I don't do that.

Piotr