--- In cybalist@..., Piotr Gasiorowski <piotr.gasiorowski@...>
wrote:
> To be as strict as possible, the _PIE root_ is *{bHeudH} with the
ablaut allomorphs *bHoudH- and *bHudH-, whereas the _Sanskrit_ base
is {budH} with the normal ablaut allomorphs /budH-/ and /bodH-/,
vrddhied /bHaudH-/, plus /bud-/, /bod-/, /bHut-/ and /bHot-/ produced
by processes that shift aspiration in Sanskrit (you may refer back to
the discussion of Grassmann's and Bartholomae's Laws on Cybalist).
Why is the base form cited as {budH}, admittedly the dictionary form,
rather than {bHodH}? My argument for the latter is (1) that one can
derive the zero grade from the gun.a, but not vice versa -
e.g. /vis./ and /vyas/ (if my memory serves me right) and (2) bH-
keeps a form of Grassmann's Law as a synchronic rule.
> Of course, historically speaking, *bHudH-to- > buddHa-, but
synchronically in Old Indic we have {budH} + -ta- -> buddHa-.
What evolutionary stage would *bHudH-to- correspond to? It looks PIE
but my understanding was that voicing was regressively assimilated in
PIE, at least in the formation of verbal adjectives in -to. I have
come across this assertion as an objection to the antiquity of the
Latin synchronic rule -VGt- > -V:Ct- (G = voiced consonant, C =
voiceless consonant), e.g. in the formation of past participles.
Richard.