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

From: Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen
Message: 14092
Date: 2002-07-20

On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, Miguel Carrasquer wrote:

> >>
> >> Type (C) is found mainly in the end-stressed instrumental (Arm. also
> >> dative?):
> >> Sanskrit:
> >> I. **-o-yh2-át > *-oyh2áh1 > *-oyya: > -aya: (no Brugmann lengthening)
> >> Slavic:
> >> I. **-oyh2áh1 + -m > *-oj(j)a:m > -ojo~
> >> Armenian:
> >> fem. obl. *-oyyV(:)(C) > -oj^
> >>
> >> Elsewhere we have type (A).
> >
> >[JER:] You are inventing rules and types of PIE just to suit a single
> >language, and only a single inflectional type of that language. That
> falls
> >flat on its face if the -y-'s of the IIr. a:-inflection are regarded as
> >analogical, i.e. as part of endings that were adjusted to the other
> >feminine type, which had gen. in -ya:s, dat. in  -yai, instr. in -iya:.
> If
> >you add that to -aH- (or *-a:-) you get precisely -a:ya:s, -a:yai,
> -aya:.
> I've always found that extremely unconvincing.  My solution is so much
> nicer.
> >The Arm. form in -oj^ is locative, commonly explained as a sandhi
> variant
> >of the locative particle *-dhi; it does not turn up in the inflection of
> >old a-stems, but has its place in the "ea"-stems which are properly old
> >neuter io-stems.
> Not so.  -oj^ appears as the GDL(Ab) of kin "woman", an eh2-stem, and
> of mi "one", an ih2-stem.  The ea-stems are only in part neuter
> io-stems (incorporated into the fem. declension due to in
> *-yah2).  The type mainly represents former feminine *yah2-stems.
> Significantly, -oj^ does *not* occur in the originally masculine
> "wo-stems" (< io-stems).

I have done you wrong by misreading your Arm. statement to be also about
the instrumental. Sorry about that.

The "ea-stems" alternate between io-stem inflection in the sg. and ea-stem
inflection in the pl., with the exception of the instr. sg. in -eaw which
is rather obviously back-formed from the in -eawk'. Therefore,
the type is basucally o-stem in the sg., a-stem in the pl., that must be
old thematic neuters. Therefore, if they have -oj^, the -o- is not
at all unexpected and there is little basis for diagnosing it as a
feminine sign.

I kept knoj^ and mioj^ out of the discussion because their relevance is
unclear. Birgit Olsen, The Noun in Biblical Armenian (Mouton de Gruyter
1999) 172, arrives at an analysis by bringing in the word aloj^ 'lamb'
which she derives from *H1lm.bhiH2, taking -amy-/-any- to yield regularly
-oj^- (via a nasal o). In like fashion she then derives *oj^ from gen.
*sm.-yaH2-s (or dat. *sm.-yaH2-ay, etc), taking it to have been
secondarily adjusted to the nom. mi, the result being mioj^. For 'woman'
she departs from a extension also underlying Gk. gunaik-
(whose -k- she gets from a nom. with *-iH2-s > *-ik-s before), this giving
gen. *gWn.H2íH2os > *kany- > *koj^ -> *kinoj^ > knoj^. I have to battle
with mixed feelings here, because I am married to her and try to avoid the
stigma of being biased. She has countered my objection based on akanj^k'
"ears" by insisting that unkn is an nt- not a simple n-stem (Gk. pl.

> >> [Jens:]
> >> >Give me a rule that explains the coming and going of -p- in IE,
> >> >not Sanskrit alone, and I'll take it under advisement.
> >>
> >[Miguel:]
> >> 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).
> >
> >[JER:] But 'make; send' must be the verb corresponding to Gk. hí:e:mi,
> >i.e. IE *H1yeH1-.
> Why *must*?

Because it meets the semantics of Gk. hie:mi, med. hiemai exceedingly
well. The middle voice iyattari 'marches' ir påractically identical with
híetai 'is being sent, is marched off'.

> >> [Jens:]
> >> >Greek épion is no
> >> >more secondary than Greek aorists at large, for the 3pl would have
> been
> >> >*pH3i-ént with that structure in any case.
> >>
> >[Miguel:]
> >> The point is that é in *pH3i-ént is not the thematic vowel, which I
> >> believe would have absorbed the *y.
> >
> >[JER:] the type is found in, e.g., Skt. syáti 'binds', dyáti 'binds',
> >chyáti 'cuts', all without that absorbtion. Do you deny the existence of
> >io-stems? They must be very embarrassing to you, for they look very much
> >like thematic derivatives from thematic stems, i.e. "-o- + -o-" > -io-,
> >accented *-ío-, as in Ved. mitrá- => mitría-. That does not support
> either
> >absorption or a change of í to yé very well. It does support, on the
> other
> >hand, the time-honoured rule of reduction of the thematic vowel to /i/
> >when not accented, followed by my rule of initial accent: *meytló- + -ó-
> >
> >*mytlió- > *mytlío- > *mitlío-, the last steps of which are younger than
> >the Schwundablaut that put the unaccented root into the zero-grade.
> Yes, I agree that -io- represents a double thematic vowel (older than
> the double thematic e:/o: of Greek and Sanskrit thematic
> conjunctives).  But, using my notation, %% does not equal y% or %y, so
> the point is not relevant.  In syáti, dyáti and chyáti we're dealing
> with laryngeals again.
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.