From: elmeras2000
Message: 26114
Date: 2003-09-27
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
[...]
> If we then analyze the nominal
> Ablaut-patterns, we see that roots with **/a:/ give /o/ when
stressed, but
> /e/ in the weak forms (*wódr, *wédnos), where originally
unstressed. Roots
> with original **/u:/ and **/i:/ show a different pattern, with
*/o/ and
> */e:/, respectively, in the strong forms, but zero grade in the
weak forms
> (e.g. with **u: póntoHs, *pn.thós, with **i: k^é:rd, *k^r.dés).
Of course we would like to know why there is é/zero in *pónt-o:H2-
s/*pnt-H2-ós, ó/é in 'water', and é:/zero in 'heart'. However, I do
not see what is gained by calling them "/u:/", "/a:/" and "/i:/"
instead of what we see. For some reason you do not seem to care
about the classical é:/é of acrostatic paradigms. I have already
criticized the lack of accomodation for *ó and *é: turning up in the
same words, as most instructively *H1wós-u and *H1wé:s-u- 'good'.
Rules I worked out for a totally different set of examples would
predict that a stem *H1wé:s-u- (weak form *H1wés-w-) forms a
collective *Hwós-u-H2, so that is where I believe the short accented
o-form came from in this word. The same set of rules would predict
that a stem *k^erd- forms a collective *k^é:rd-H2 (which makes Skt.
há:rdi look nice).
There hardly is a type ó/zero, so 'path' looks like something in
need of a very local explanation. The easy way out is to posit the
*root* as *pont- rather than *pent-. Since a few other roots appear
to present this same alternation I would accept it as lexical. The
counterevidence one might see in the e-vocalism of Germanic *fin{th}-
i/a- 'find' has little weight, since it could easily be due to
standardization of the ablaut.
Jens