28-04-2004 23:27, Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
> I take it you're not too keen on including Hitt. suwais in
> the equation. Arm. haw is of course ambiguous (/h/ < *s- or
> /h/ < *h2- as in the "shepherd" word [even if *H(2/3)o- >
> ho- seems to be slightly better supported than *H2a > ha-]).
I'm not too keen on complicating the reconstruction in order to make it
capture everything -- all the pretty chickens and their dam -- at one
fell swoop. I'd be quite happy with full-grade *h2awi- and nil-grade
*h2wi- as scattered fragments of a more primitive pattern, giving rise
to new branch-specific paradigms (*h2awi-/*h2awei-, *h2wi-/*h2wei-). As
for the explanation of its origin, whatever works for other *-i- stems
with closed inflection will work for *h2(a)wi- as well. If <suwais> is
related to the whole set, the relationship need not be straightforward.
It may be a different paradigm, possibly from an original collective
*(s)h2wó:is (hypothetically = 'fowl').
> The nice thing about my solution (for which most of the
> credit must of course go to Jens), is that it unifies the
> Vedic, Hittite, Armenian, Latin etc. forms into a single
> paradigm (*(s)h2woyh1-/*(s)h2weyh1-), and additionally leads
> naturally to Greek aietós (*h2wyet-os).
Complicating the ablaut. Now you introduce another mobile vowel between
the *y and the final *t/*h1. How did it get there if the original form
was your **(s)xawá:yt? I much prefer treating *h2awi-es- and *h2awi-eto-
as (related) extensions of the original stem (Skt. vayas- is parallel
but independent). I like the idea that the Germanic 'egg' word is to be
taken at face value as an *-es- stem not directly connected with
*o-h2wi-o-m. If terms for immature creatures acould be formed by adding
a neuter suffix (cf. Slavic *-eN(t-), OE cild, lamb in the *-es-
declension), one possible interpretation of *h2awi-es- is 'chick,
hatchling', gettig us close to the meaning 'egg'.
>>The arrow "-->" was intended to suggest that pre-Toch. *h2aweyes had the
>>same analogical origin as *h2awis. The two just co-evolved together.
>
>
> Yes. That leaves that genitive form with initial e- (from
> *o-).
Yes. But that genitive is obscure anyway. It surely owes its <e> to the
unattested nominative. Tocharian may have had some relict forms
reflecing the o-grade despite having generalised the e-grade (coloured
to *a), but the material is unfortunately too scanty to show us the details.
Piotr