Jens:
>So let's try again. The alternation *po:d-s/*ped- (weak cases) is
>derivable from underlying *pe:d-
Me:
>Prove it.
Jens:
>Oh, not again ... "Foot" has *pe:d- in the loc.pl. *pe:dsu [...]
I fully accept that *e:/*e is parallel with *e/zero and that both
are the result of accent alternations.
What I don't accept is the analysis that *pod- has a long vowel
in its default form. It's default form (the strong form) is *pod-,
regularly lengthened in the nominative by the presence of *-s.
The lenghtening of the weak case form *ped- (as seen in
*ped-os) can likewise occur, producing *pe:d-. This doesn't
mean that the root contains long vowel. In fact, it is the
presence of the short vowel in cases where the root is clearly
accented and clearly always accented that demonstrates that
the root has _short_ vowel. That proof is the accusative
*podm.
To support your theory, you must assume the existence of
triple-morae and assume that the roots were reduced, even
though we know full well that the nominative _lengthens_
the preceding vowel. It's a multiplication of hypotheses.
We either end up claiming that all stems showing length in
the nominative are long-vowel stems (making for a severely
lop-sided system), or we assume yet more nonsense as to
why some stems are to be considered "long" and others not.
Me:
>Hmm. Then what is *bHohg- for example?
Jens:
>Perhaps *bheH3g- (thus LIV). What made you decide the
>laryngeal is not /H3/ which would allow the vowel to be /e/?
Can you prove that the laryngeal here is *hW (*h3)? The verb
looks to me to be a derivative of *bHeh- (with *h1).
= gLeN
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail