--- In cybalist@..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: tgpedersen@...
> To: cybalist@...
> Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 12:43 PM
> Subject: [tied] Re: Ingvar and Ivar
>
>
>
[snip]
>
Scandinavian.
>
> > Actually, what I wanted to do was to argue for the existence
of "difficult" alternating stems in ProtoGermanic (in Polish they
have <ruka>/<w ruce>, in case you didn't know:) Most sensible Slav
languages have obliterated that). This would make life easier for my
> proposed Nom. *dan-/Obl. *tan- stem. But you have admittted the
existence of such stems so that obstacle seems out of the way now.
>
> There is no <ruka> in Polish (it's <re,ka>, with a nasalised
vowel). It isn't a difficult alternation but an old stem-final
palatalisation, completely predictable in *all* Polish feminines in -
ka (we also have -ga : -dze). Russian eliminated this type of
alternation (or maybe didn't carry it out consistently) but it
survives even in Ukrainian and Belarusian, not to mention the rest of
Slavic, so your remark about "most sensible Slavic languages" is
factually wrong.
Torsten:
Oops, sorry about that. The whole thing stems from a remark I read
somewhere that a state of affairs with an alternating stem (as in
Polish) is inherently unstable, and bound to be regularized sooner or
later (as in Russian).
Piotr:
Nobody denies the existence of alternations, but as for *dan-/*tan- --
the devil's in the details. Only a definite etymological proposal
can be evaluated, not a loose idea.
>
> Piotr
Torsten:
Here is one. So as to make sure it is done the proper way it's all a
quote from Alexander Lubotsky: "Against a PIE phoneme *a"
begin quote:
... hysterodynamic inflection, cf Beekes (1985: 165-166) who
reconstructs the following paradigm:
Nom. CeC-u-s or, in our case, *tueH2-u-s > Pre-Gk. *saus
Acc. CC-eu-m *tuH2-eu-m > *tuwawa (?)
Gen. CC-u-os *tuH2-u-os > *tu:wos
Thematization of the nominative yielded *sawos, while the
introduction of /t-/ from the oblique cases provided the nom.sg. of
Hesychius' gloss...[taús]
end of quote
so I'll venture this:
Nom. *deH2-n- > *da:n-
Acc. *dH2-en- > *d'an- > *tan-
Gen. *dH2-n-
where /d/ is plain (non-aspirated, non-glottalic, as Kordtland
proposed).
Or, if an initial *s-/*t- alternation (in Greek) is OK, why isn't *d-
/*t-?
(I know it doesn't quite follow the pattern, due to the number of
consonants (3 vs. 4). But anyway!)
Hope this is "definite" enough. Feel free to take it apart.
Torsten