[tied] Re: Rise of the Feminine (was: -osyo 3)

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

> On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 22:26:49 +0000, elmeras2000
> <jer@...> wrote:
>
> >You may be told right away that they correspond to the Sanskrit
> >vr.kí:h.-type with which -id- was identified by Chantraine. My

wife

> >Birgit Olsen has made a spectacle of herself by assuming that IE

*-

> >iH2-o- gave Greek *-ido-, so that Gk. gen. -ídos equals Ved. -

ías.

> >The intermediate stage supposedly had something like -iDo- with a
> >dental spirant (much like Welsh -ydd from -iyo-). I'm afraid this
> >reflects my bad influence on her. The paper was published in an
> >Erlangen congress report (Indoarisch, Iranisch und die
> >Indogermanistik, Wiesbaden 2000). Nobody liked it, but there were

no

> >arguments against it.
>
> I'd have to take a look at the Greek and Vedic part of the
> argument. I just checked up on the Armenian side of the
> argument, summarized on p. 852 of "The Noun in Biblical
> Armenian":
>
> ... the occurrences of a "suffixal" *-d- > -t- somehow
> appear connected with "eRu/Ru:"-roots where "*d" takes the
> position of the laryngeal which would be root final in the
> zero grade (*Rhu > *Ruh, cf. Rasmussen 1989): alawt
> "obscure, concealed" < *pl.ud- < /pluh2-/, arawt 'pasture,
> pasturage' < *sr.ud- < /sruh2-/, cnawt (-ic`) 'jaw; volute'
> < *g^enud- <- /g^enuh1-/ and karawt 'needing' < *gWr.ud- <
> /gWruh2-/...
>
> One thing I find curious about these forms is the syllabic
> resonant (*pl.ud- *sr.ud-, *gWr.ud-). If there had been
> simple metathesis of laryngeal and /u/ in *plh2u-, *srh2u-,
> *gWrh2u-, I would expect *pluh2, *sruh2-, *gWruh2-, not
> *pl.uh2- *sr.uh2-, *gWr.uh2-. If there's an explanation,
> I'd like to hear it, but for now I prefer to assume that
> *pl.u- *sr.u-, *gWr.u- normally reflect *pl.h2u- *sr.h2u-,
> *gWr.h2u-. So what is the *d?

I'm not sure I am at liberty to reply to this, but the author
refuses to waste her time on the list in order to leave at least one
sane person in the house. The idea may be one of paradigmatic
levelling by which, say, *sr.H2w- gave araw-, while a sequence of *-
uH2- + vowel produced a hardened glide *-d- > -t-, the net product
being then arawt-. But that is no stated in the book, on the
contrary, she says "the exact details escape our control" (93). I
believe that today she would be less reluctant to take the evidence
at face value and say boldly that *sruH2-V- yields Arm. arawt-, as
if via something like *s&r&wH-V- > *s&r&wd-V-. It took her ten full
years to write the 1100-page book, and some parts are less recent
than others.

> I can understand nobody liked it: a development from a
> voiceless (post-)velar fricative to a voiced dental stop is
> rather hard to swallow. But assuming the Greek forms in
> *-id- are indeed connected to the Skt. vr.ki:s type, what
> other explanation can there be?

Thank you, I'll tell her you said that. And I'd better not tell her
what follows. I would like to leave the subject here, she
occasionally broods over it, and it's an issue of high voltage in
this house.

Jens