On Fri, 15 Dec 2000 06:11:34 +0100, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
<
mcv@...> wrote:
>I don't know why Pokorny also reconstructs *esr(gw).
Of course, the instrumental <asr.ja:> in the RgVeda and later texts.
But that might be secondary.
Speaking of which, is there an accepted explanation for the
palatalization of (labio)velars before case endings? We have, e.g.
from va:c- (< *wokw-):
N. vá:k vá:ca:(u) vá:cas
A. vá:cam ,, ,,/va:cás
I. va:cá: va:gbhyá:m va:gbhís
D. va:cé va:gbhyás
G. va:cás va:cá:m
L. va:cí
Now the G.pl. is certainly unetymological (*-kw-ó:m should not have
given -cá:m). I'm not so sure about the accusatives (*-m, *-ns),
given Indic's propensity to i-colour schwa's, even though the final
result was non-palatalzing *a. The N.pl. D. and L. sg. are clear
(*-es, *-ei and *-i). The interesting part is the I. and G. sg.: does
the palatalization mean that we must assume proto-I-I I. *-e: and G.
*-es?
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...