Re: [tied] Re: Old English "a-spylian"

From: Piotr Gasiorowski
Message: 17488
Date: 2003-01-09

----- Original Message -----
From: "alex_lycos" <altamix@...>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 9:52 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Old English "a-spylian"

> I just wanted to give a hint that the use is the same as in slavic or
> german "with "i" ad not like in greek or latin with "e". See germanic:
> ich, ik, , slavic:"ia", greek & latin "ego", umbrian "eho" etc.
> Why with "i"? I dont know either since the PIE form is *egomlike in
> latin and greek so far I know.

Slavic has *(j)azU (OS azU) or its shorter version *ja. The full form is the regular development of PIE *eg^om. The *j is just an automatic glide before a word-initial vowel, as in *jablUko (cf. apple).

Proto-Germanic had *ek (the early Runic inscription on the Galehus Horn began <ek hlewagastiz holtijaz ...>), with the weak or enclitic variant *ik, which tended to replace the strong form. There was in general a strong tendency to merge *e and *i in Germanic even in stressed syllables; Gothic, essentially, had [i] across the board except before <r> and <h>, where the conditioned variant [e] (spelt <aĆ­>) was used. The later distribution of /e/ and /i/ in German or English does not reflect PIE contrasts. PGmc. *ek/*ik < PIE *eg^-, as elsewhere, including Latin and Greek.