Re: bake

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>

wrote:

> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski
> > <piotr.gasiorowski@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
> > >
> > > > Correct me if I'm wrong, but a zero grade extension *bh&g-,

as

> > far as
> > > > I know, would have been stressed after the -g- extension,

and -

> g-
> > > > therefore be subject to Verner; thus Gmc **bag-, not *bak- ...
> > >
> > > Well, it _is_ wrong. Verner's Law applied to fricatives only,
> > changing *f, *þ, *x, *xW and *s into *b [B], *d [ð], *g [G], *gW
> [GW]
> > and *z, respectively. The PIE *d series (> Gmc. *t) were
> unaffected,
> > so Vernerian alternations are impossible in stems like those of
> > <sit>, <eat>, <leap>, <drink> and <bake>.
> > >
> > Of course.
>
> But how do you explain OHG 'bacchan', 'bahhan' >
> NHG 'backen', 'bachen' and 'Bäcker' "baker" then? Low German
> influence?
> Greek 'pho:gein', Lat 'fo:veo' (< perf. fo:vi), German bu:k. It

seems

> the o-grade is long. If the verb stem is *bH&g- < *bHh1g-, how does
> it ablaut?

Sorry, 'fo:vi' is from the original -g- less *bH-h1-, of course. But
still, it seems the original e/o/nothing pattern in Germanic
irregular verbs is here instead *bHh1g-/*bHoh1g-/*bHh1g-, thus
nothing/o/nothing?
As to the -a- of *bHag- "apportion" being original, what stops us
from positing *bHh1g- instead (as for stress, there's
Phrygian 'Bagáios')?

Torsten