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

On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 12:46:44 +0000, elmeras2000
<jer@...> wrote:

>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-.

I still don't understand how *sruH2-V- can give *s&r&wH-V- >
*s&r&wd-V-, instead of simply *sruH-V [> *srud-V?]. You can
use the laryngeal either to explain the syllabic resonant
(*srHw- > *s&r&w-), or to explain the -d-. You cannot use
it twice.

>> 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.

It was just a loose thought, not to be taken too seriously.
I won't bother to explain the other idea I had.

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