Re: Question about o-infix

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

> This is a question for Jens, but perhaps others are also
> interested.
>
> In your o-infix theory, there is a connection between the
> syllabic structure or a root and the outcome of the o-infix.
>
> 1. Roots of a certain ("simple") structure have unstressed
> /o/.
> 2. Roots with original long vowel have /o:/ (in the
> causative).
> 3. Roots containing a laryngeal (e.g. TeRH) drop the
> laryngeal and have stressed /ó/ (in verbal nouns).
> 4. Roots of a certain ("complex") structure drop the o-infix
> and show zero grade.
>
> What I don't fully understand is the exact definition of
> "simple" and "complex" roots in the above, as illustrated in
> e.g. the Summary of "Morphophonemics of the IE
> Protolanguage":
>
> TET -> /o/ (foveo, toga)
> TEWT -> Z (s'ubháyate, fuga)
> TERH -> /o/ (goné:, janáyati [laryngeal not dropped in the
> causative?], cennan)
> STERT -> /o/ (spondeo, spondé:)
> SRET -> Z (hr.zaya-, sleg)
> TWEH -> Z (kuéo:, phué:)
>
> Judging by the last two examples, the complexity of the
> onset of the root also plays a role. Is that so?
> The most complex root in the above examples is *spend-
> (heavy onset + heavy final), and yet it gets /o/. How is
> that?

It's what we see. We can make *some* generalizations on the basis we
have, but we do not have the full picture. Laryngeal loss does not
take place before a vowel. The parameter by which loss of the
infixed element is governed is not easy to make out. There is -o- in
relatively simple roots, but there is also loss in quite simple
roots if they have a muddled phonetic structure. It may in reality
be a matter of distinctness rather than one of complexity. Anyway, a
final verdict can only be formed on the basis of a fuller picture.
Anyone who cares may continue the digging.

Jens