From: tgpedersen
Message: 32533
Date: 2004-05-10
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:we
> > 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
> have, but we do not have the full picture. Laryngeal loss does notin
> 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-
> relatively simple roots, but there is also loss in quite simplea
> roots if they have a muddled phonetic structure. It may in reality
> be a matter of distinctness rather than one of complexity. Anyway,
> final verdict can only be formed on the basis of a fuller picture.I may get my ears mangled, but I'll venture it: How many cases of o-
> Anyone who cares may continue the digging.
>