Re: [tied] Re: Question about o-infix

On Sun, 16 May 2004 00:54:45 +0000, elmeras2000
<jer@...> wrote:

>I am not ungrateful for your attempt to make head and tail of the
>confusing distribution of -o- and zero in the toga and iterative
>structures. That may indeed be what is needed to persuade those who
>do not even accept the very existence of the o-element this is all
>about. However, I do not feel I can afford to make hasty
>generalizations which have known facts against them.
>
>It would indeed be strange if the distribution does not depend on
>the root structure, so your suggestions reflect thought I have made
>myself in an earlier period. They may be adequate for the limited
>material accidentally placed at your disposal, but that is not the
>whole story:
>
>As I understand your generalization, a root long enough to contain
>an extension (a "suffixe" in Benveniste's theory of the root) has -o-
> the full-grade vowel is located in the first part (the minimal
>root, Benveniste's "racine", i.e. before Benveniste's first hyphen),
>and zero if it is located later. That works fine for the structure
>TeRT-, as in Lat. tondeo:, Lith. bandà (roots analyzable as *ten-d-,
>*bhen-dh-, which form *tond-éye-, *bhondh-áH2). However, it does not
>work for *TReT-: Gk. tropé:, tropéo:, trophé:, strophé:, *prok^-éye-
>in OCS prositi, *prok^-áH2 in Avest. p(&)rasa: (*prek^- 'ask').
>Therefore, this part of the suggested subrule does not hold.

My suspicion is that (besides the /u/~/w/ factor) the main
factor that tends to eliminate the infix is a cluster of two
obstruents (except sC-), or of an obstruent and a resonant
in the "wrong order" (RC- and especially -CR).

Of the 36 LIV roots with zero-grade and -éye-, 17 contain
/u/ or /w/. The above criteria add another 10 (*h2g^er-,
*spHerh2g-, *k(W)RepH-, *h1eish2-, *meikh2-, *meith2-,
*reh1dh-, *deh2i-(?), *dheh1i-(?), *pesd-). That leaves
only 9 unaccounted for (*bhergh-, *gem-, *h2erk(^)-, *keit-,
*kleh1-, *sk^end-, *sperg^h-, *terh2-, *trep-), and I don't
think all 9 of them belong here. At least one of them has a
/u/ somehow (*terh2, which gives Ved. tú:rvati, turayante:).

The above also fits in nicely with the Vedic reduplicated
aorist, where the pattern is Ci-CC- / Ci-CRV- vs. Ci:-CV- /
Ci:-CR.C-, as if the O-infix had been deleted before a heavy
root onset (CC- or CR-), but not otherwise (/i/ + O-infix
becoming /i:/).

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