Re: [tied] Re: Morphology 19 update

From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 17048
Date: 2002-12-07

On Fri, 06 Dec 2002 22:49:27 +0100, Piotr Gasiorowski
<piotr.gasiorowski@...> wrote:

>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).

That's a reasonable possibility to explain the Indic (or Indo-Iranian)
form, but if these extensions are analogous to the 1st. person
(thematic) verbal ending, I have no a priori reason myself to suppose
a laryngeal was there because of that (neither in *(h1)eg^hom nor in
*(h1)eg^o:), since I do not think that 1sg. *-o: < *-oH.

I have no explanation for *g^h in Indic, but it's a fact that in the
emphatic particle *ghe/*-ge/*-g^he/*-g^e variations do exist, for some
reason, so if that particle is what we have here, the possibility of a
variant *g^h was already "built in".

Another possibility is that the dative in *-g^hio(i) had something to
do with it.

Miguel Carrasquer Vidal