Re: [tied] Re: Morphology 19 update

From: Piotr Gasiorowski
Message: 17047
Date: 2002-12-06

Besides, it isn't a case of "different but similar roots" (even if such a thing HAD TO mean borrowing, which it doesn't). The "root" is *(h1)eg^-. What varies is the presence or absence of an accompanying enclitic. Aspirated *g^(H) is Indic only, and may be the same sort of thing as <mahi-> vs. <mega->, <mikils>, etc. or <duhitar-> vs. <tHugater-> -- a branch-specific treatment of "voiced stop plus laryngeal" sequences, if e.g. *(h1)eg^-h2om is the correct reconstruction (I realise that this is un-Miguelian).


----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Wordingham" <richard.wordingham@...>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 6:39 PM
Subject: [tied] Re: Morphology 19 update

--- In cybalist@..., "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
> --- In cybalist@..., Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
> > On Fri, 06 Dec 2002 09:16:19 +0100, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...>
> > wrote:

> > >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
> >
> 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?

> Torsten

And how do you propose to get *eg out of Proto-Austric *(a)(n)qu,
Proto-Austro-Asiatic *(m)(i,a)(n)qu(a)(n), Proto-Austronesian *aku or
Proto-Tai *ku (vowel uncertain)? Moi, I think one would still have a

Tai source: Adapted from Fang Kuei Li in light of Gedney's
observation on vowel alternations and Hayes' Proto-Austric
reconstruction of the vowel.

Source for other Austric: )