Re: [tied] Schleicher's Tale

From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 24837
Date: 2003-07-27

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 17:14:48 +0000, Rob <magwich78@...> wrote:

>Kl.ní:

If this is supposed to be the locative of an i-stem *kl.(h3)nís (Lat.
collis, OE hyll), it should be *kl.h3né:i. Whether such an i-stem actually
existed in PIE is another issue. EIEC reconstructs *kólHo:n, *kl.Hnós,
apparently based on Grk. kolo:nós (koló:ne:), which I find dubious. The
opening consonant is *k (**q) (Lith. kálnas). The laryngeal is *h3, as
suggested by the /u/ in Lith. kalvà, Goth. hallus, Greek /o:/ in kolo:n-,
and by the choice of the suffix */n/ if the thing is originally from */mn/
(cf. Lat. columen > culmen, columna) [this is a soundlaw due to either Jens
or to Birgit Olsen, I don't remember, which states that suffixal /mn/ is
reduced to /n/ if a labial (p, bh, m, h3, kW etc.) preceeds in the root, to
/m/ otherwise]. I guess the original shape was something like *qólh3mn.,
*ql.h3mnós (> *kl.h3nós). Locative *kl.h3mén(i) (?).

>n.wl.éh2neh2

The word for "wool" is given in EIEC as *wl.'h2nah2 which I have no
problems with. I'm not sure privative *n.- can be prefixed to a noun like
that.

>h3éwis

Probably *h2ówis

>h1ékwons

Another possibility is *h1ékwo:ns.

>spokét / h1e spekt.

EIEC gives *spéket.

>Tóisom h3éinos

Most likely *h1óinos.

>gwr.úm

EIEC *gWr.Húm

>wóghom h1e weght h3éinos megnóm

EIEC *mégh2m (*meg&2m), but *még-n-m., thematic *mg-n-óm are also
acceptable, I guess.

>bhórom h1e bhert, h1éti h3éinos wírom h3e(h1)kú(d) h1e bhert.

Where and which laryngeals to supply in *o:k^u- "fast"? I'm doubting
between *h1óh1k^u- and *h1ó:k^u- with laryngeal-less Dehnstufe.

>H3éwis weukwét: "Méom kerd h2eghnutói spekeni wírom h2egóntm.
>h1ékwons."

I prefer the "classical" rendition (EIEC version: *k^é:r h2aghnutór (or
-tói) moi h1ékwons h2ág^ontm. h2nérm. widn.téi): the construction with
dative *moi and present ptc. *widn.téi (dependent on a middle verb) sounds
more genuine than your version with a possessive and an infinitive (there
were no infinitives in PIE). The possessive is hard to reconstruct: we
have *mo-, *mo-yo-, *me-yo-, *mei-no- etc. *mo- looks like the most
archaic one. The NAsg. of "heart" is *k^é:r (Hitt. ki:r, Grk. kêr).

>H1ékwo:s weukwónt: "Kléu(e),

The athematic 2sg. imperative is *k^ludhí.

>h3éwis, n.smá: kr.dá: h2eghnuntói spekeni tod:

Same problem as before (*k^é:r h2aghnutór n.sméi widn.tbhiós ...). The
possessive of "we" is even more difficult to reconstruct (Skt. asmá:ka-,
OCS nas^I, Lith. mu:suN, Arm. mer, Hitt -smis, Grk. he:méteros, Lat.
noster, Goth. unsar). The plural of "heart" is also problematical.
Hittite has <ki:r> (same as the NA singular), probably from *k^é(:)r(d)-h2.

>wíros, pótis,

Everybody reconstructs *pótis, *pótim, but I prefer *pótyo:n, *pótim.

>h3éwios wéleh2s

The other versions have an acc. here (*wl'.h2nah2m)

>gwhr.móm wéstrom sebhi

I reconstruct the dative of the reflexive pronoun as *suébhio (*súbhio).

>kwérti. H1éti h3éwis n.wl.éh2neh2 nu h1ésti."
>
>Tod kekluwós

*k^ek^luwó:(t)s (ptc. pf. act.), G. *k^ek^luúsos

>, h3éwis h2égrom bhugét.

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