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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:

> I'm not sure if *h1yi-h1yeh1- can be original. Wouldn't we expect

only the

> first consonant to be used in the reduplication syllable (*h1i-

h1yeh1- like

> *si-steh2-)? Not that it matters much if *y- was added later to a

form

> *i:ye:- (> *yi:ye:- > hi:e:-).

It appears to be the way Greek operates, cf., e.g., elé:lutha (Hom.
eilé:loutha) from *H1le-H1l-. Also Skt. tís.t.hati demands presence
of the /t/ in the reduplication. Even so, they can all be
analogical.

>
> To return to my theory about the causative as o-grade root + *ey-

e/o-,

> where *-ey-e/o- (also *-p(e)-ey-e/o-) comes from a verb

meaning "to do, to

> make", as in Hittite iyami, iyesi (*h1ey-e/o-)... Can the Greek

verb then

> be analyzed as *h1ey- + stative suffix *-eh1- + present

reduplication, in

> other words *h1(y)i-h1y-eh1-?

I have no objection to an interpretation of suffixes as older
meaningful segments. However, stative does not seem obvious with a
word meaning 'send, throw' and forming a root-aorist.

Jens