On Fri, 31 Jan 2003 14:31:58 +0000, "Glen Gordon"
<
glengordon01@...> wrote:
>Miguel:
>>The oblique *pk^wós is attested in Armenian [...] and in Slavic
>>pIsU (Slavic /I/ from schwa secundum). [...] we have Sanskrit ks.u (not a
>>compound), and general IE *(p)k^wó:n "dog".
>
>Stop the bs. Slavic /pIsU/, Sanskrit /ks.u/ and your
Hamp's
>imaginary
>**pkwo:n reconstruction have no bearing on weak case forms of
>*peku which _DO NOT_ show **pkw-.
Just beacuse you say they have no bearing on them doesn't make it so.
>>>>The genitive of *pek^u is not **pek^eus!
>>
>>The genitive of the i- and u-stems is overwhelmingly *-eis,
>>*-eus/*-ous.
>
>I rest my case -- You ARE insane.
Let's see:
i-stem G.sg. u-stem G.sg.
Sanskrit: -e:s -o:s
Avestan: -ais^ -aus^
Greek: -eo:s -eos, -uos
Latin: -is -u:s
Old Irish: -o, -a -o, -a
Lithuanian: -ies -aus
Slavic: -i -u
Armenian: -i -u
Gothic: -ais -aus
Hittite: -ayas, -iyas -awas, -uwas
Sanskrit, Avestan, Lithuanian, Slavic, Armenian and Gothic all point
unequivocally to *-eis (*-ois) and *-eus (*-ous). Latin also has
*-ous in the u-stems, but C-stem *-es in the i-stems. Old Irish also
has *-ous or *-eus in the u-stems, and the i-stems are perhaps
analogical (or from *-ois). Greek has an analogical G. in the i-stems
(-eo:s < -e:os, with the -e: of the Loc. sg. -e:i), and *-ewos or
*-wos in the u-stems. Hittite has modified *-eis/*-ois to
*-eyos/*-oyos, *-eus/*-ous to *-uwos, *-owos.
Besides the normal paradigm, with gen. in *-eis, *-eus, there is a
special type (Szemerényi calls it the "subsidiary type") with gen.
*-yós, *-wós. As I said in an earlier message, this type is very rare
(only a few words in Sanskrit and Avestan follow the type, and even
less in other languages). *pék^u, *pk^wós belongs to this type.
>>My insistence on knowing the exact _rules_ was based on my
>>understanding that the zero grade of *wed- is *ud-,
>
>While *ud- truely exists as the zero-grade form of *wed-
>(in **COMPOUNDS and DERIVATIVES**), there appears to be
>*wed- as the weak case form too, as bluntly demonstrated by
>Hittite /witenas/. This is because the unstressed form of
>early Late IE *w&d- would have become asyllabic **wd-
>without either opting for *wed- (preservation of schwa)
>or *ud- (abnormal zero-grading).
*ud- is the _normal_ zero grade of *wed-, as in the collective *udó:r,
or as in *swep- ~ *sup-. If **wd- was asyllabic than so was your
**k^wn-, and you're still wrong. The reason we have *wéd- in the
oblique of *wódr is because *e is here the weak grade of *o. We have
zero grade in *sm-és because zero is the weak grade of *e.
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...