From: João Simões Lopes Filho
Message: 5045
Date: 2000-12-13
----- Original Message -----
From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <mcv@...>
To: <cybalist@egroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 11:25 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] PIE *h3 and PPIE **n
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 05:16:41 , "Glen Gordon"
> <glengordon01@...> wrote:
>
> >>But an optional (C) [i.e. *-n(C) > *-r(C)] wouldn't hurt >(considering
> >>Ved. ásrk "blood" or yákrt "liver").
> >
> >I will say again, -k (as well as -t) are secondarily added. The
> >reconstructed IE forms for "blood" and "liver" both end in *-r and are
given
> >no ending, Miguel. Get out a Hittite dictionary. You will see no -k's or
> >-t's attached. This doesn't exist outside IndoIranian.
>
> That's a curious statement from someone who has just explained *sáxwl,
> *sxwéns as analogical after the -r/-n- heteroclitics. I'd say Latin
> <sanguis> proves that the <-k> in Vedic is *not* secondary, just like
> Greek <he:par>, <he:patos> proves the <-t> in <yákrt> to be original.
>
> >>Toch A Toch B
> >>
> >>active present
> >>-m -u, -w
> >>-t -t(o)
> >>-s. -m.
> >>-mäs -m(o)
> >>-c -cer
> >>-ñc -m.
> >>[...]
> >>active preterit
> >>-wa: -wa
> >>-s.t -sta
> >>-0 -0
> >>-mäs -m(o)
> >>-s -s(o)
> >>-r -r, -re
> >
> >Right, the 3pp active preterite /-r/ could be a potential catalyst for
the
> >purely TochB form -cer.
>
> Don't be silly. Perfect *-r(o) doesn't even catalyse an -r in the
> perfect 2pl. (Toch. *-s), so why should it influence the imperfect?
>
> It was more likely the old imperfect/aorist/optative ending *-e:r
> (later replaced by *-nt, but still seen in Hittite -e:r, and as Vedic
> -ur in some impf./aor. and all opt. forms) that influenced the 2pl. in
> proto-Tocharian *-te:r, before it was supplanted itself by *-nt. The
> Toch. imperfect derives, at least in part, from the PIE optative.
>
> >Is *-te:r your own reconstruction or is it actually
> >reconstructed by experts? Where else is this *-te:r attested? (Probably
> >Armenian again :P)
>
> Toch. B /e/ has two origins: PIE *o and PIE *e:. The difference is
> that *o doesn't palatalize, and *e: does. So -cer can only be <
> *-te:r.
>
> >We can't even attribute a common -cer form to the
> >Tocharian branch
>
> As I explained, we can. Toch. A has lost the Common Toch. imperfect
> plural endings *-m(y)ä, *-tyer, *-0.
>
> >so why must we overturn standard IndoEuropean
> >reconstructions
>
> There is no standard IE reconstruction that accounts for Toch -cer.
> There is no "standard" PIE reconstruction for the active plural at
> all, although there's nothing really unorthodox about *-men(i),
> *-ten(i). It's attested in Anatolian.
>
> >and modify a working Heteroclitic Rule just because of one
> >deviant form.
>
> What are you talking about? I'm trying *not* to modify the
> "Heteroclitic Rule" by explaining an exception like Hitt. -ten and
> pointing out an isolated form that might reflect lautgesetzlich *-ter.
>
> >Honestly, I don't understand your reasoning.
>
> Ditto.
>
> >>Tocharian A <se>, B. <soy> (< *soius < *suius). Maybe Armenian ><ustr>
> >>(influenced by <dustr> "daughter").
> >
> >Ignoring /ustr/ for many reasons, how can we derive *-u- out of /se/ &
> >/soy/? And surely you would want it to derive from **suxyus, if anything,
> >not **suius. There is no IE verb *sui-, Miguel! The verb is *seux-.
Again,
> >there is no justification for the *-y- in such a senseless form as
**suxyus.
>
> *soius and *suius are pre-Tocharian forms (PIE *u > *(w)ä in Toch., so
> there's no need to mark the length on *u:). They show that in
> Tocharian we have dissimilation, as in Greek, but working the other
> way (*su:ius > hu:ios; *su:ius > *soius > *seywä). Tocharian A
> clearly shows that the word was an u-stem: NA <se>, G. <seyo>, pl. N.
> <sewa:ñ>, A. <sewa:s>. See D.Q. Adams "Tocharian" 1988, p. 127.
>
> >>>There is no **yem- like you expect with your "dual-state" rule.
> >>
> >>There is.
> >
> >Perhaps in a conlang dictionary or amongst friends at a Star Trek
convention
> >but we're talking about competantly reconstructed PIE roots. I have never
> >seen this root reconstructed anywhere, so it must have arisen from your
own
> >flightful whim.
>
> See IEW p. 505 *iem- "halten, zusammenhalten etc." for some Sanskrit
> forms. The Slavic forms are listed under *em-.
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...
>
>
>
>