Re: [tied] Neglected alternations

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com,
Piotr Gasiorowski
<piotr.gasiorowski@...> wrote:

> It's on my list of unsolved

problems as well. There's a possible
example of *n ~ *h2 as well
(*men-/*mah2- 'think', if it's the
latter that we find in <mood>). I'm
not sure if *drem-/*drah2- belongs
here, since we also have *dreu-
'run', and since all these roots are
triconsonantal, **der- with
extensions is a plausible analysis.

>
> Piotr
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Miguel Carrasquer"

<mcv@...>

> To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2003

3:54 PM

> Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Pronouns

again

>
>
> On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 03:27:20 +0100

(MET), Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen

> <jer@...> wrote:
>
> >It may be note that PIE has other

cases of an interchange of /m/ and
/H2/.

> >One could cite the roots *gWem-

and *gWeH2- 'come, go' (combined to
a

> >paradigm in Greek baino:, eba:n);

there are also *drem-/*dreH2- 'run'
and

> >another *drem-/*dreH2- 'sleep'.

Could the form with /H2/ be pausa

> >variants? The alternation would

not be *very* different from Old
Norse

> >springa, prt. sprakk (with -kk <

*-nk < *-ng). Still, it would demand

> >something like a labiovelar

nasal, and thus does not look
particularly

> >appealing.
>
> This *m ~ *h2 alternation has been

on my to-do list for a long time,

> but so far I haven't been able to

come up with a solution that made

> sense. Jens' remarks have turned

my attention to the problem again,

> so let's have another try at

interpreting this mysterious
alternation.

>
> In principle, there are a number

of ways in which we can view the

> problem:
>
> 1) There are two roots *gWem- and

*gWah2- (etc.), and they are

> etymologically unrelated. The

similarity in meaning and shape is

> accidental.
>
> This possibility is hard to

disprove, but I can reject it by an
appeal

> to "gut feeling": I "just know"

that *gWem- and *gWah2- are related.

> On the other hand, I can accept

this possibility for now in its

> "agnostic formulation": Until a

good solution is found for the

> alternation *m ~ *h2, the two

roots *gWem- and *gWah2- (etc.),
must be

> treated provisionally as

etymologically unrelated.

>
> 2) There was a root *gWeX-, which

split into *gWem- and *gWeh2-

> depending on position/context.

This is Jens' speculation above, and

> the area where I have been

searching on and off for a solution,
in

> vain. Jens' suggestion of

something like a labiovelar nasal
(*ngW ?)

> might work, but has its problems.

In itself, I have no trouble

> accepting the presence of

labiovelar *ng in (pre-)PIE, and my
personal

> theories about pre-PIE phonology

would make the existence of a

> labialized variant *ngW

unavoidable (I believe there was
stage when

> _all_ pre-PIE consonants had

labialized variants). If *nW gave
*m in

> certain contexts, as I believe,

then *ngW could also have given *m.

> Unfortunately, I cannot find a

pathway from *ngW to *h2.
Does it help that syllable-initial
velar nasals have become /h/ in some
Southern Thai dialects? Voiceless
velar nasals (or /hN/) have often
become /h/ in Tai dialects
generally.
Richard.
End---of---Message-----
If we

> reconstruct the root for "blood"

with a labiovelar nasal as

> *h1ésh2angW-, then the result in

final position is *h1ésh2r.gW (Skt.

> asr.k), not +h1ésh2&2.
>
> There is a variant of possibility

(2) where the proto-phoneme *X is

> replaced by a consonant cluster:
>
> 2bis) *gWem- and *gWeh2- derive

from a root *gWeXY (where *X is

> perhaps *m, and *Y perhaps *h2),

which gave sometimes *gWem-,

> sometimes *gWeh2-.
>
> But this (at least for a cluster

*mh2) simply does not work. We can

> explain the loss of *m before *h2

in certain contexts (see below), but

> then we would expect an

alternation *gweh2- ~ *gWemh2- which
is simply

> not what we see. There is no

+gWemh2-

>
> Some more possibilities:
>
> 3) The root is *gWe-, and *-m and

*-h2 are suffixes (root extensions).

>
> 4) The root is *gWem- and *-h2 is

a suffix / root extension.

>
> 5) The root is *gWeh2- and *-m is

a suffix / root extension.

>
> Possibility number three is

somewhat similar to number one. It
is the

> best "agnostic" solution if your

gut feeling tells you thet *gWem