Re: *a/*a: ablaut

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
<miguelc@...> wrote:

>
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 18:42:06 -0000, "alexandru_mg3"
> <alexandru_mg3@...> wrote:
>
> >--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal

<miguelc@>

> >wrote:
> >>
> >> 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
> >here...
> >> >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:

> >
> >Lubotsky:
> >
> >"
> >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

> >WAS FOLLOWED BY A CONSONANT.
> >
> >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).

It seems a good derivation.
For our topic: is important to highlight that from a root *sweh2d-
with a laryngeal: h2, we can derive all the forms.

> Cf. also LIV *peh2g^-, n-infix
> *ph2n.g^- > Skt. paj-.

I doubt here.
In a supposed *ph2ng^- the laryngeal will be vocalized not the n
=> *ph2.ng^-

Anyway, at least this root 'has a laryngeal' for you too.

> >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-).

Based on what? You use as argument your supposed conclusion?
The discussion here is if we can derived all the existing forms
from a root -eh2- ... or not

And we have Latin ra:do: too

Once you agree that the roots
*peh2g^-
*sweh2d-
contained -eh2-

why not *bHeh2g-
*reh2d-
*weh2g^-
*sleh2g-
etc...

Either all or none

Finally the model supposing that it wasn't any a/a: in Early-PIE
is hard to be rejected

> 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
> miguelc@...

a: could well be formed later (I mean after the loss of laryngeal)
if you take a look at the PIE cluster and the resulted output
Not a concludent counter example.

Marius