Re: [tied] Verb extensions

From: Piotr Gasiorowski
Message: 15965
Date: 2002-10-06

There are other examples, e.g. *ten-, *tend- 'extend, stretch', *k^weit-, *k^weid- 'glitter; white, shining', *sal-, *sald- 'salt', *kau-, *kaud- 'strike, hew', etc. Of course if the *d-extension has been a productive process in PIE, we'd call *-d- a suffix.
----- Original Message -----
From: Glen Gordon
Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2002 6:21 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] Verb extensions

>The 'bend' --> 'know, see' link seems rather arbitrary to
>me, but *g^Heu- (well-attested especially in Greek, Armenian and
>Indo-Iranian) and *g^Heud- (a "western IE" root) have the same central
>meaning and the "extension"
>analysis is accordingly uncontroversial.

But... What if *gHeu- and *gHeud- are not actually related
to each other at all because there never was a *-d-
extension? One can find a pair of words in any language
with the same beginning and even with similar meanings
but they are red herrings without a common origin.

I'm suspecting that *gHeu- and *gHeud- might not actually
be related to each other (just as "yes" and "yen" aren't
related to each other) but rather that they are similar
looking words with similar phonetics that have different
prehistoric origins. Granted, IE is special in that verbs
in fact do have "extensions" such as *-eu- and *-ax-.
While the latter endings seem real enough, I don't see
anything showing that *-d- was truely a real extension
other than via overly mathematical morphology and idle
hypothesis. Am I wrong or are there many examples of *-d-
that perhaps I'm unaware of?