[tied] Re: Eggs from birds and swift horses (was: the palatal sham)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Piotr Gasiorowski"
<piotr.gasiorowski@...> wrote:

[JER:]

> > I know of no other cases where a suffixal -u- of strong cases is

being

> replaced by -lo- in weak cases.
>
> (You mean -no-, don't you?)

Of course, ".. replaced by -no- ...".

> Well, a suppletive paradigm needs no special
> excuse for being irregular. My claim is that <pollos> and <polús>

were

> originally two different (albeit close-to-synonymous) adjectives,

each with

> its own suite of cases forms, and that the two paradigms became

conflated in

> Greek (with the well-known dialectal variation). The fact that the
> adjectives in question were related and formaly similar certainly

made the

> conflation easier.
>
> > I do know of an exactly parallel
> distribution of the allomorphs méga- and megálo-, so I would assume
> it is the same suffix, i.e. *-lo-, not *-no-. Also, I am not
> sure /ll/ is the regular reflex of *-ln- in Greek.
>
> I'd say it's at least semi-regular, /ll/ being one of the possible

outcomes.

In a case like óllu:mi we will seem to have a *secondary* piecing
together of root ol- and productive -nu:mi. The story will be
exactly as with hénnu:mi which does not show the regular
debelopement of original *wes-nu- (which would have lengthening + n
outside of Aeolic), but that of a younger period which only had
analoggical restorations to work on. That will make a regular form
out of oûlos and sté:le: for the old period, and of óllu:mi and such
forms for the analogical forms of a younger period.

Your point must be that /pollo-/ is specifically as old as anything
in Greek. I find that hard to accept.

> What's the alternative here? *pl.h1-ló- won't work.

The alternative is fine, if you take the /-lo-/ of megálo-, you
don't have to change anything else into it.

> > And, by the testimony of the other examples, an infix formation

from

> *pleh1-mn
> should be accented *pólno-.

Did I write that? I meant *pelH1-mn.

> An infix formation from (unattested) *pelh1-mn. should be, but I'm

not sure

> we should expect the same kind of stress retraction in a

derivative of

> *pleh1-mn., with an originally light root.

Right, I would expect *ploH1-nó- from that (although I cannot think
of an exact parallel at the moment, but there are *bhoH2-ná-H2 and
*dhoH1-mó-s).

*pél&1-mn. is attested as Vedic pári:-man.- 'Fülle'. That would
indeed put the -o- where you have it, but the accent should be on
the initial. The alternative is that the *whole* story is wrong, and
then there is no support for any part of your analysis.

Jens