From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 52870
Date: 2008-02-12
----- Original Message -----
From: "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 2:33 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: *a/*a: ablaut
> On 2008-02-12 21:11, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
> >
> > 1. Do you accept 'the loss of laryngeals before mediae in Indo-
> > Iranian"?
> >
> > like in:
> > Skt. vájra-
> > Skt. pajrá
> > etc..
>
> No, it's Lubotsky's private theory, not accepted by the majority of
> IEists. In roots like *bHag- even LIV has *a. The reconstruction
> *bHah2g- only creates problems instead of solving them. Lubotsky
> performs some acrobatic tricks to explain away the short /a/ of
> <bHájati>, while the simplest solution (*bHeg-/*bHog-/*bHg- with the
> e-grade coloured to *a by the following *g) explains all the attested
> forms without invoking analogy or any other "special effect". Forms like
> <bHa:jáyati> and <babHá:ja> have /a:/ from the expected o-grade via
> Brugmann's Law (*bHog-éje/o-, *bHe-bHóg-e). Just forget the laryngeal
> and let regular sound changes do their job.
>
> Incidentally, this verb has *e as its fundamental vocalism; it isn't one
> of the *a:/a roots. Mixing it up with *wa(:)g^- etc. is wrong.
>
> Piotr
***
I do not understand why <bhájati> needs to be reconstructed as *bho- rather
than *bhe-.
More coloring?
Why would a palatal <j> color anything to [a]?
'g'-coloring is a real 'slippery slope'.
Patrick