Re: *a/*a: ablaut

From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
Message: 52980
Date: 2008-02-13

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 18:42:06 -0000, "alexandru_mg3"
<alexandru_mg3@...> wrote:

>--- In, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <miguelc@...>
>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 23:14:32 -0000, "alexandru_mg3"
>> <alexandru_mg3@...> wrote:
>> > If you have at least one argument against this rule post it
>> >It will be simple: a trace of a laryngeal preserved in that position.
>> sva:dús "sweet" < *sweh2dús, etc.
>Miguel, with the above example...I hope that you not try to treat
>Lubotsky as a pure idiot.

I simply meant to show a trace of a laryngeal before a
voiced unaspirate, as you asked. The additional condition
(followed by another consonant) was never mentioned.

>I will quote for you what the rule is and the additional explanations:
>The roots of all above-mentioned words contain a final unaspirated
>voiced stop, preceded by a laryngeal, and, äs I have shown elsewhere
>(Lubotsky 1981)
>laryngeals were lost in Sanskrit before mediae, WHEN THE WHOLE CLUSTER
>In the same article I considered the exceptions
>to this ruie. Here I only mention, that the presents svadati,

As mentioned in LIV, this is a nasal present from the root
*sweh2d-: *suh2n.d- > suvad- > svad- (still scanned once as
suvad- in the Rgveda). Cf. also LIV *peh2g^-, n-infix
*ph2n.g^- > Skt. paj-.

>bhajati and radati were originally athematic, äs is evident from, e.g., the
>Vedic forms bhaksi and ratsi.

But none of these verbs contained a laryngeal (LIV *bhag-
and *Red-).

A clear case of VHDC with retention of the laryngeal in
Sanskrit would seem to be LIV *bhreh1g^-, Skt. ábhra:t. (=
*h1é-bhreh1g^-s/t), unless it's an s-aorist.

Miguel Carrasquer Vidal