[tied] Re: Question about o-infix

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, enlil@... wrote:

> I see a pattern clear as day.

[...]

> There. So now everything makes sense once we open ourselves up to
> the PIE mind and divide up the verb stems into two distinct patterns
> of _perceived_ root-and-extension-pairs.
>
> Pattern 1: CVR-(C-) -> CoR-(C-) (sometimes *Cu-(C-))
> TET -> TET- -> /o/
> TERH -> TER-H- -> /o/
> STERT -> STER-T- -> /o/
> TEWT -> TEW-T- -> Z
>
> Pattern 2: CR-VC- -> CR-C-
> SRET -> SR-ET- -> Z
> TWEH -> TW-EH- -> Z
>
> The only question remains as to why expected *ou becomes *u but
> we know this to be a recent sound change in the latter half of
> Late IE.

Well, that is not bad: If the root part preceding the root vowel could
be the entire consonantism of a root, then the o-infix formations
retain the -o-, if not they do not. That is worthy of further
consideration. It would mean that all old roots with initial clusters
capable of forming a syllable have zero, while roots with old simple
initial consonants have -o-. And it could indeed be that *-Ow-
(o-infix + /w/) yields /u/. I have nothing much against it for the
moment. It does not get *psd-éye-ti right, though, but why would it be
completely perfect the first time around?

Jens