Re: [tied] wre:g^, wro:g^ 'break'

On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 09:11:31 +0100, P&G <petegray@...> wrote:

>Miguel:
>Full grade *wreh1g^- > wre:g^-, o-grade (e.g. perfect) *wroh1g^- >
>*wro:g^-. Zero grade *wr&1g^- > wrag^- (although in Greek one would
>perhaps expect *wreg^-; the occurrence of rhag- here is an argument
>for the traditional position that *&(1/2/3) all give *a, even in
>Greek).
>
>Rix is in line with Miguel and offers:
>Full grade : aorist ?*wreh1g' Greek erre:xa
>Zero grade : Present ?*wrh1g'-neu/nu Greek rhe:gnumi
> Fientive ?*wrh1g'-eh1/h1 Greek up-errage:
>o grade : Perfect *we-wroh1g' Greek erro:ge
>
>The perfect should have gone *we-wro:g > we-iro:g > eiro:g, so the attested
>form has been rebuilt. The perfect erre:cha also occurs.
>The present apparently shows rh1 > re: instead of the more normal er (or
>ere). According to Beekes (Development of the PIE Laryngeals in Greek)
>there are other cases of this (as of rh3 > ro:).
>The zero grade thus has two apparent outcomes here, one of which (re:) is
>found elsewhere, and the other of which occurs only the aorist passive where
>the -a- vowel is almost universal on forms that do not have the productive
>suffix -the:n. For example:
> di-ephthare:n etaphe:n eklape:n espare:n estale:n estraphe:n
>esphale:n
> etrape:n etraphe:n ephane:n echare:n
>So I don't believe it is a purely phonetic development here. Analogy must
>surely have played a part. Therefore Miguels' comment that &(1/2/3) all > a
>in Greek cannot be supported from this evidence.

I merely said that a form like rhag- is an argument for those who are
sceptical of a separate development of *&1, *&2, *&3 in Greek, I didn't
mean to imply that I agree with that position. There is a convincing body
of evidence supporting the separate development in Greek. All that needs
to be done is to find an explanation for a form like rhag-, as you have
done above.


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...