Re: bake

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

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

wrote:

>
> > But what we have in German seems to be from
> > *bH&g, *bHoh1g > *bho:g, *bH&g
> >
> > Where do you see any Gmc **be:k- "bake"?
>
> It seems to have been an *o-present, cf. Gk. pHo:go: . The short
> vocalism of the present tense in Germanic looks secondary;

But from where? In that case of cause the long vowel of Sw. [ba:k-]
is tertiary(?), but that verb (as in Danish) is regular. Perhaps:

1) most linguist have proceeded from the German 'backen'?

2) in some (not ON) Gmc. languages vowels in open syllables are
automatically long, but some linguists tend to ignore that?

>in general,
> the a ~ o: ~ o: ~ a ablaut is hard to explain. This class of strong
> verbs contains originally different types of roots. They were
> conflated in Germanic with at least some analogical restructuring.
>For
> example, *sak-an- (< *{seh2g-}; OE sacan, so:c, so:con -sacen) has

the

> same root structure as *{bHeh1g-}, but *far-an- (OE faran, fo:r,
> fo:ron, -faren) seems to derive from *por- -- a different shape
> resulting in the same ablaut pattern in Germanic.
>
> *bHeh1- 'bake, warm' (without the extension) is visible in OHG

ba:en <

> *be:-j-an- (< *bHeh1-je-).

Unless that is umlauted *ba:- ? I'd hate to miss an opportunity to
unite 'pho:gein' "roast" (ie. "prepare food") and 'phagein' "eat".
And behind it I sense the *bH-h2- "appear, make appear" root, plus an
extension -g- that I suspect creates nomina agentis.

Furthermore, I suppose it would be possible to get Lat. 'facio' into
it, although it's now considered to be from *dHeh1- "put". But does
the semantics match?

Torsten