Re: The palatal sham :) (Re: [tied] Re: Albanian (1))

From: Joao
Message: 30182
Date: 2004-01-28

Did PIE not allow a cluster -ts- ? How about *swek^s.<*sWet^s instead of *sWets ?
----- Original Message -----
From: Miguel Carrasquer
To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 11:54 PM
Subject: Re: The palatal sham :) (Re: [tied] Re: Albanian (1))

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 10:30:02 +0100, Mate Kapovic <mkapovic@...> wrote:

>From: "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...>
>> You're absolutely right. But the *k in *sweks isn't from *s^ at all.
>
>Enlighten me please.... :-)

The Semitic prototype is *s^idt_- (traditional reconstruction, a more
accurate Proto-Semitic rendering is perhaps /sidc^-/).

The /d/ is stil retained in Southern Semitic (Sabaic <sdt_>, Ge'ez <s&ds>),
but otherwise the cluster was simplified (Akk. s^is^s^-, Ugaritic t_t_,
Hebrew s^is^s^-, Aramaic s^is^, Arabic sitt-).

We obviously don't know the exact source of the PIE borrowing, but perhaps
the most likely one is a (pre-Akkadian) form *s^ids^, which should have
given PIE *sWets(W).  This was apparently changed to *swek^s.  Perhaps
(pre-)PIE phonotactics did not allow the cluster /ts/, and it was replaced
by /ks/.

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

Yahoo! Groups Links