Re: [tied] Re: [pieml] PIE rhotacism

On Thu, 15 Nov 2001 13:55:43 +0100, "Piotr Gasiorowski"
<gpiotr@...> wrote:

>Not a Freudian slip, just a mild joke intended by the typer ;). The "Pandora" type of question I had in mind was something like: "How do you know that the animate acc.sg ending (and the thematic inanimate nom./acc.sg. ending) was *-m, not *-n?" (and no circularity, please, like "It can't have been *-n because it was not rhotacised").

And, I presume, no references to Uralic acc. *-m. Well, in that case,
all I can think of is the oblique (< accusative?) marker *-mé (*-wé)
in the personal pronouns (*-wé in the sg. and du., *-mé in the pl.
*nsmé and *usmé).

>> My sources (IEW, EIEC) indicate that <ageiro:> is from the root *ger- "to gather" (*n-ger- ?).
>
>I suppose it would have to be analysed as *sm-gerje-, but where's the expected Attic aspirate? Post-Pokorny research (I can provide you with precise references tomorrow) has yielded more convincing etymologies for a whole set of such forms, relating them to *h2ag^- with heteroclitic extensions. Anttila connects <aga-> (*'contest, game') as in <aga-klutos> with <ago:n>, regarding the latter as originally collective.

But in any case a masculine collective.

>Note also the relation between <pieira> (Skt. pi:vari:) and <pio:n> (Skt. pi:van-), where *-wo:n alternates with *-wer-ih2.

Yes. I wanted to mention that. The feminine ending *-ih2 (like the
thematic ending *-os) is often found after an *-r which by by the
heteroclitic rule must come from *-n. [The same, BTW, goes for the
*-s that comes from *-t(W) (e.g. the pf.act.ptc. *-us-ih2)]. Both
*-ih2 and *-os can be regarded as postponed (p)articles that were not
univerbated until after the working of the heteroclitic rule. So
indeed the effect of the Auslaut-rule *-n > *-r can sometimes be seen
in what appears to be an Inlaut position. But I'm not sure whether
it's necessary to include here a form like <ageiro:>.

>>> Where do locatival adverbs like *ud-en come from?
>
>> I'm not sure what you're referring to.
>
>"Endingless locatives" like Vedic udan, ahan, Hitt. dagan. They were in fact denominal adverbs based on the bare stem and loosely connected with the corresponding declensions, which could be expected to make them resistant to analogy. Their independence is underlined by the facy that <udan> is the sole surviving member of its paradigm in Indo-Aryan.

Pokorny also gives G. udnás and pl. udá: (< *udo:r). Are those forms
only given by the grammarians?

>> What I'm wondering is where do the locatival pronouns in *-r come from? (Germanic where, there, Lith. kur~?)
>
>Any evidence that it comes from *-n?

(Note also Latin quir-quir = ubicunque). Latin un-de, Slavic ko~-de^
might point to a locative base *kwun-/*kwon-.


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...