Re: [tied] Morphology 19 update

From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 17041
Date: 2002-12-06

On Fri, 06 Dec 2002 06:36:12 +0000, "Glen Gordon"
<glengordon01@...> wrote:

>I really hate stupidity. I enjoy a good debate when it is founded
>on facts rather than an insistance on adopting one's own personal theories
>without any strong arguement. Instead of using facts, Miguel is insisting
>that his crazy re-interpretations of IE are correct.
>They aren't. There is no **eg because the universally accepted
>reconstruction is *ego:.

No it isn't.

Beekes: *h1eg^, *h1egoH, *h1egHom
Rasmussen: *eg^
Szemerényi: *ego:, *eg(h)om
Schmidt (in Pokorny IEW): *eg^Hom (n.) < *e- + *-ghe + -om
Cowgill: *eg^
Adams/Mallory (EIEC): *h1ég^, emphatic *h1eg^óm
Adrados: *eg
Lehmann: *egh

>Likewise, there is no alternation of 3ps *-t with **-to in
>_Indo-European_ (because we're NOT talking about Post-IE or

Yes we *were* talking about that.

>Furthermore, there is no **-g suffix because the vowel-final ending is
>the attached particle *ge. Again, the zero-grade of *gV, regardless of where
>it is positioned in a word, is not **g according to mainstream Indo-European

So what *is* the zero grade of *-ge according to "mainstream
Indo-European ablaut"?

Miguel Carrasquer Vidal