From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 22789
Date: 2003-06-07
>If 'in the house' is *dé:m as we expect and Avestan confirms,Can also be *dó:m(i).
>then 'at the foot' should be *pé:d. I do not find that, but theI don't expect it, and I don't see it. In fact, there's another reason why
>unexpected long vowel of *pe:dsu must come from somewhere in the
>paradigm, and of course the obvious locus is the locative singular
>where we do expect to get the long vowel.
>[...]The vowel was part of the suffix. It was not inserted, but deleted by zero
>
>> > Accepting all of that, I can now
>> >utilize it to explain the o-type of suffixed neuters, such
>> >as 'water'. If 'water' can have a young collective in húdo:r,
>could
>> >*wód-r perhaps be based on the old type of collective? It would
>look
>> >like this: *wé:d-r-h2 > *wé::drh2 > *wó:drh2 > *wódrh2.
>
>
>> But the lengthening worked _before_ zero grade, when the word was
>still (in
>> your notation) *wé:d-or-h2...
>
>That's what I used to believe, but I have wised up since. Actually,
>the suffix only had a vowel in stems that would have ended in at
>least three consonants without the suffix vowel, i.e. exactly like
>the i- and u-stem types in the distribution seen by Szemerényi (and
>explained by myself). Since the root of 'water' ended in a single
>consonant, even adding -r-/-n- would not make the stem so long as to
>demand a vowel to be inserted.
>> Does this explain all the neuters with *o/*e, such as:So why is it not a trace of it seen in other forms? As far as I understand
>>
>> *wodr, *wednos "water"
>> *smok^wr, *smek^nos "beard"
>> *g^onu(r), *g^enwos "knee"
>> *h2ost(Hi), *h2est(H)nos "bone"
>> *pok^u(r), *pek^wos "livestock"
>> *mostr(g), *mestnos "brain, marrow"
>> *h1oudhr, *h1udhnos "udder"
>> *k^ouh1r, *kuh1nos "hole"
>> *h2ongl, *h2englos "charcoal"
>> *k^okWr, *k^ekWnos "excrement" (also *sok^r, *sek^nos)
>> *sókWt(Hi), *sekWtHnos "upper leg"
>> *stomn, *stemnos "mouth"
>> *wosr, *wesnos "spring"
>> *h1osr, *h1esnos "autumn"
>> *doru, *derwos "tree"
>> *woh1r, *wehros "water" ?
>
>To the extent that they have been correctly reconstructed, I'd be
>inclined to say yes. In *h2óst-h2/*h2ast- we even have the
>collective marker sitting on the word in Skt. ásthi.
>One couldIt alternates *k^e:r(d), *k^r.d(i)- because the long vowel was here **i:
>assume the same for há:rdi 'heart' which basically alternates *k^érd-
>/k^rd- and is neuter.
>> - the neuters are explained away as "old" collectivesBecause it has the structure of a collective, and the lengthening of o > o:
>
>Only where they have taken the special form with -o- peculiar to the
>collective. Those with /-e:-/ are the corresponding non-collectives.
>
>Why does it bother you less that húdo:r must also be derived from a
>collective form?
>> On the other hand, if we take a fresh look at the data, we seeOK, that was unfair: it is applied twice in my way of looking at the
>that the
>> lengthening caused by *-s or *-h2 is already accounted for (nom.
>*po:ds
>> with long *o: vs. acc. *podm with short *o, collective *udo:r with
>long *o
>> vs. *wodr with short *o). It seems unnatural to apply the
>lengthening
>> twice. Moreover, why was it not applied twice in the HD type
>(*p&2tér-z
>> (1)-> *p&té:rz (2)-> *p&2té::r = p&2tór ?).
>
>Hey, this is a gross mistake, have you been thinking that way all
>along, or is it just a sign of fatigue? The lengthening rule is not
>applied twice anywhere.
>Why did it not do that in a verb?It did. The perfect/stative shows the exact same distribution as the noun,