Re: [tied] Laryngeal theory as an unnatural

On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 21:09:15 +0100, Piotr Gasiorowski
<piotr.gasiorowski@...> wrote:

>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Miguel Carrasquer" <mcv@...>
>To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
>Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 3:53 PM
>Subject: Re: [tied] Laryngeal theory as an unnatural
>
>>> ... the alleged alternation *h1don- ~ *h1dent- does not seem to me to be supported by any real data.
>
>> I believe it is supported by Latin dens. Within a static paradigm like *h1dónts, G. *h1dénts, Latin had a strong tendency to confuse the genitive in *-s with the nominative, and to create the paradigm anew based on the oblique stem: e.g. hiems, dens, pe:s, all nominatives from original G. *ghyéms, *h1dénts, *péds.
>
>OK, but is *h1dénts attested anywhere as the genitive?

As far as I know, it isn't.

><dent-> might equally well represent generalised *h1dn.t- (cf. Skt. dán, dántam but datás), thus resembling <cor, cordis>.
>
>> The word for "tree" had at least two different shapes: **dá:r-un (n.), G. **da:r-ún-âs, and a variant with short root vowel **dár-ûn (n.), G. **dar-ún-âs. These regularly develop into:
>
>>*dór-ur, *dér-w-os
>>*dér-wor, *dr-éw-os (without labialization of /n/: *dr-ún-os).
>
>One problem here is the purely conjectural character of your final *-r. What we actually see is just *doru plus a whole constellation of oblique roots.

We don't have an Armenian cognate here, but the "tree" word behaves in
many respects just like the "r/u"-stems we see in that language: cunr
(< * g^onur), meLr (< *médhu(o)r), asr (< oblique *pk^w-), artawsr (<
*drak^ur), and adjectives like barjr (< oblique *bhr.g^hw-), obl.
barju, pl. barjunk`. The variation *n ~ *r ~ *w is fully explained by
the soundlaws I have proposed [*]. Secondary regularisation to fit
the regular u-stem pattern is unsurprising.

>> We have: Skt. da:ru, G. drún.as or dró:s, Loc. da:runi, Ins. drúna: Grk. doru, douros < *dorwos, Att. G. dóratos < *dorn.tos
>
>*dorwn.tos, I think (cf. <douratos> etc.).

Correct.

>It seems to me that *-n- is an analogical stem extension borrowed from heteroclitic paradigms. Derivatives like *derwo- do not need it.
>
>> Slav. *derwo-, Gmc. triu (*drew-), etc.
>
>The Slavic isolated collective *drUva looks more archaic.

The collective should have been **darú:nx > *dróuh2 ~ *drúh2, which is
compatible with the Slavic form (druva: < *drúh2 + -ah2).

>*dervo- may be an instance of Kurylowicz vriddhi (secondary full grade), like *deiwos. Germanic did the same, but selected a different slot for vowel insertion.

In my explanation, you don't need the vrddhi or worry about where the
vowel was inserted. Slavic *derwo- and Germanic *drewo- follow
automatically from the twin paradigms *dóru(r) *dérwos / *dérwo(r),
*dréwos.


[*] I'll see if I can convert my suite of (f)lex rules to Mark's
"sounds" program.


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...