On Sun, 23 Mar 2003 09:25:01 +0000, P&G <
petegray@...>
wrote:
>> Are there instances of *qe (traditional *ke) in IE then?
>
>Traditional *ke in PIE includes:
> ked, keg, ke:i, keis, kek' keku keko kel (7 different roots), ekeu, kelg,
>kelp, kem(x2) kemero ken (x4) ken(x3) ketH ker (x3) kerd (x2) kered kerem
>and on and on (another 12)
>
>This seems secure enough to me, so I'm wondering if I understood you
>correctly.
Not all these roots are equally reliable. We have to be sure that we
are indeed dealing with *k not *k^, and that there are clear reflexes
of *ke- rather than e.g. *ka- or *ko-
*ked-: russ/serb. c^ad- cannot be from *ked-. One would have to
explain the relationship between *ked- and *ke:d-. Greek kédros
"ceder" is included by Pokorny with a question mark.
The root *keg-/*keng-/*kek-/*kenk- (besides
*k^ak-/*k^ank-/*k^enk-/*k^onk-) is also problematical (Germanic shows
a long vowel in ho:ka-, he:kan-), although NPers. c^ang-, MIR. -cheng,
Lith. kenge: seem to point to *ke-.
*keis- only shows evidence for zero grade *kis-, which is not affected
by the qe- > ka- rule. In the case of *ke:i- as well, most forms
reflect zero grade *kih1-, although there are some forms (Skt.
ce:s.t.a-) pointing to *ke(:)i-.
*kek^ has been discussed before on this list, and is rather doubtful.
*keku- (Iranian and Baltic only) is also not a very firmly established
root. It may be a reduplicated form of a root *keu-.
I'll look at the other roots later when I have more time.
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...