Re: Morphology 19 update

From: tgpedersen
Message: 17043
Date: 2002-12-06

--- In cybalist@..., Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Dec 2002 09:16:19 +0100, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...>
> wrote:
> >On Fri, 06 Dec 2002 06:36:12 +0000, "Glen Gordon"
> >>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
> Let me expand a bit more on this. As you can see, only Szemerényi
> reconstructs (non-laryngeal) *ego:, although he does not try to pass
> it off as the sole reconstruction for PIE, of course. That is
> *ego: (or *h1egoH) simply does not qualify as a valid PIE
> reconstruction.
> A reconstruction, and I can see by your acc. **menem, gen. **menese
> that you're having some problems with the concept, is required to
> provide a valid path to all of its descendant forms in the daughter
> languages, and there is just no way to get from *ego: to Baltic
> Slavic azU or Indo-Iranian *ajham. That's why Szemerényi is forced
> provide an alternative form *eg(h)om. And even then it's doubtful
> whether both reconstructions together can account for Baltic *es^ or
> Armenian es.
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...

Interesting. Isn't the usual conclusion when one is forced to posit
several different but similar roots that the word must have been
borrowed? I think you guys know from where?