From: Abdullah Konushevci
Message: 21271
Date: 2003-04-26
><jer@...>
>
> On Fri, 25 Apr 2003, Sergejus Tarasovas wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen
> > wrote:was
>
> > > However, I wonder if cases of an apparently meaningless suffix
> > > *-wo- and nasal presents in apparently suffixed *-new-/*-nu-
> > > could reflect roots that were actually longer but lost some
> > > material in so many forms that they were registered in too
> > > short a form.
> >
> > Is it a beginning of a new thread? If not, I must admit you won: I
> > can't see how this is related to the PIE phonotactic features I
> > wondering about.were
>
> Oh no? I meant you may be on to something in terms of root structure
> adjustments in prestages of PIE. Perhaps unpleasant root structures
> brought into line with overall rules by a variety of strategiesdepending
> on the specific phonotactic setting, but left alone where theypresented
> no difficulties. And, just as with roots in -Hy- which have largelycaused
> misinterpretation of the -y- as a suffixed element, thus some otherhave
> structures could perhaps also contain high-sonantic elements that
> been put down as suffixes in our handbooks. A case in point may beSkt.
> cinoïti 'pile up' with PPP citaï- (Lith. kitas 'other' from*'added'?)
> which it would be nice to combine with Gk. poieïo: 'I make,compose' under
> a root form *kWeyw-; that would be no problem for *kWi-ne-w-ti, norfor
> *kWoyw-eyo:, but it would demand the assumption that theanteconsonantal
> zero grade changed from *kWyw-to- into *kWi-to-, or that, at anearlier
> time, the anteconsonantal root form was reduced from *kWeyw- to*kWey-. I
> wouldn't know how to test such a possibility except by waiting for************
> examples to show up.
>
> Jens