Re: [tied] The phonetic value of PIE *h3 and the 'drink' root.

From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 14053
Date: 2002-07-17

On Wed, 17 Jul 2002 16:37:20 +0200 (MET DST), Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen
<jer@...> wrote:

>On Wed, 17 Jul 2002, Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
>> I believe I have found evidence for the regular loss of *y (*i)
>> immediately preceding or following a stressed thematic vowel, which
>> would also explain **pi-ph3-é-t(i) for expected *pi-ph3y-é-t(i).  I'm
>> thinking in particular of the eh2(a:)-stems, from thematic vowel +
>> *-ih2, with e.g. Nsg *-eh2 (> -a:) for expected *-o-yh2.  Another form
>> is the o-stem NAV dual in *-eh3 (> -o:(u)) for expected *-o-yh3.  With
>> *y before the thematic vowel we have the reduplicated (causative)
>> aorist, where the causative suffix *(p)éy-e/o- appears in the zero
>> grade as *-(p)-é- instead of expected *(p)y-é- (e.g. á-ji-jñi-p-a-t <
>> **(h1e)-g^i-g^nh3-py-%'-t, therefore also sis.vapas < *si-swep-é-s <
>> *si-sw(e)p-y-%'-s).  [where *% is the thematic vowel before it split
>> into *e and *o]
>> If the loss of *y is regular before a stressed thematic vowel, then
>> the Greek aorist épion (*h1e-ph3i-é/ó-) must be either secondary
>> (Jens) or it must be derived instead from *h1e-pih3-é/ó- (Piotr).
>I believe the underlying forms are here based on nothing but wishful
>thinking. I see no evidence that a:-stems (made from thematic stems) and
>"i:-stems" (made from athematic stems) are identical i underlying

In my view, they have. The feminine suffix was **-ih2. The pertinent
soundlaws are:

1) [stressed]
**í > in open syllable: *yé
> in closed syllable: *íC1#, *íC1C2 (at least for C1 = *h2)

2) [unstressed]
**i > *y

3) ["svarita-lengthened"]
**i: > *ye:

4) [absorption by thematic vowel]
**%'i > *% > *e ~ *o, according to the voicing of the next segment.

For athematic nouns, we have proterodynamic (de:vi:-type):
A) <light root> : **'-i:h2 > *'-ye:h2
B) <heavy root> : **'-ih2 > *'-yh2

cf. Gothic band-i (heavy root), sun-ja (light root), Lith. -e: and
Lat. -e:s feminines. Elsewhere unstressed *-ye:h2 was reduced to
*-yeh2 and further to *-ih2 > *-i: (i.e. the same development as for
stressed *-íh2) or *-ja: (*a:/*ja: as *o/*jo).

For both types, oblique **-íh2-a:s > *-yáh2os > *-ya:s, etc.

Hysterodynamic (vrkí:s-type): **-íh2-z > **-yéh2-s > *-íh2s
Obl. **-ih2-ás > *-yh2ás > *-(y)yás

Thematic: **-%'-ih2 > **-%'h2 > *-eh2 > *-a:
but V. **'-%-ih2 > *-oi(h2)

A) **-%'-ih2-a:s > *-éh2os > *-á:s
B) **-%-íh2-a:s > *-oyéh2os > *-oyá:s
C) **-%-ih2-ás > *-oyh2ás > *-oyyás

Type (B) underlies the Sanskrit oblique forms:
G. **-oya:s > -a:ya:s
DL. **-oya:i > -a:yai (L. -a:ya:m)

Type (C) is found mainly in the end-stressed instrumental (Arm. also
I. **-o-yh2-át > *-oyh2áh1 > *-oyya: > -aya: (no Brugmann lengthening)
I. **-oyh2áh1 + -m > *-oj(j)a:m > -ojo~
fem. obl. *-oyyV(:)(C) > -oj^

Elsewhere we have type (A).

>Give me a rule that explains the coming and going of -p- in IE,
>not Sanskrit alone, and I'll take it under advisement.

The causative suffix is in origin the verb *ey-e-ti (Hitt. iyami "ich
mache", píjami "schicke hin", uijami "sicke her"). I don't know why
Sanskrit chose the variant with preverb *p(e)- to make the causative
of roots ending in a laryngeal (and a few others).

>Greek épion is no
>more secondary as Greek aorists at large, for the 3pl would have been
>*pH3i-ént with that structure in any case.

The point is that é in *pH3i-ént is not the thematic vowel, which I
believe would have absorbed the *y.

Miguel Carrasquer Vidal