Re: [tied] Comments on Beekes' pre-Greek

From: etherman23
Message: 49538
Date: 2007-08-17

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
wrote:
>
> Why not dare posit an -t- infix in Indo-European ?
>
> this explains :
>
> kwel "inhabit" => polis + ptolis
> => polemos + ptolemos
>
> bhegh "to beg" => English beg Grec ptokh-
> (Both words are supposed to be isolated)
>
> Most words in Greek with starting with pt and kt are infixed with -t-.

I've always wondered about a *d prefix. In those words beginning with
*p the *d prefix assimilates in voicing to *t then undergoes
metathesis. We also have the *ak'ru~*dak'ru pair. This would also
explain those instances in Greek that have initial z where other
languages point to initial y (generally the multiple reflexes of PIE
#*y are explained by assuming a laryngeal).

Possibly the prefix was *dH. The *dH could still assimilate to *t
whereas *dHak'ru > *dak'ru because of the root constraints on voiced
aspirates and plain voiceless not co-occurring in roots. I'm not sure
what PIE *dHy is reflected as in Greek. The only thing I could find at
the Tower of Babel site was a single root where *dHy > Greek s. The
*dH prefix would also explain the *ag'H~*dHag'H variant.

But whether it's a prefix or infix, what are the semantics?