[tied] Re: Bader's article on *-os(y)o

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

> On Sun, 23 May 2004 01:21:57 +0000, elmeras2000
> <jer@...> wrote:
>
> >> I now have an elegant solution for /e:/ ~ /0/ and
> >> /o/ ~ /0/ ablaut in nouns (*k^é:r(d), *k^r.dés, *pé:r(r),
> >> *pr.nés; *póntoh2s, *pn.th2ós), an explanation for the zero
> >> grade in the plural of Narten presents, possibly also an
> >> explanation for *tudéti/*yugóm thematics, etc.
> >
> >Skt. há:rdi indicates to me that the /e:/ of 'heart' has been

caused

> >by the lengthening effect of the collective marker *-H2
>
> There is no collective marker in Grk. or Hitt. ke:r.

I didn't say there was. I have of course compared hárdi with the
other cases of Sanskrit -i in neuter consonant stems, as
ásthi 'bone', sákthi 'thigh', where it is preceded by aspiration.
That really invites the analysis as a collective marker and, as the
next step, the use of it here. There is the alternative that *k^érd
became *k^é:rd or *k^é:r all by itself as is widely assumed
(Szemerényi insited on the latter), in which case there is no
reduction of unaccented /e:/ to zero either. The Luvian form
zarzsa 'his heart' reflects a short vowel.

> And
> the correspondence Skt. -i ~ Hitt. -iy- (kardiyas) also
> doesn't exactly point to a laryngeal.

No, I never said it did. I would say that Sanskrit hr.´d-aya-m and
Gk. kardía:, kradíe: look like the disjecta membra of an older
neuter-and-collective paradigm with the suffix *-eyo- seen in
adjectives of material and ethnics, so *k^r.d-éyo-m, *k^r.´d-ia-H2
would mean 'of heart, made of heart flesh', perhaps 'made of heart
blood'. The semantics could also reflect an older and wider use of
the suffix.

> It's simply that besides the root noun *k^í:rd, *ki:rd-ás (>
> *k^é:r, *k^r.dés) there was also a variant with a suffix
> -i(n). *kí:rd-in, *ki:rd-ín-âs regularly gives *ké:rdi,
> *kr.dyós, which is what we see in Skt. NA há:rdi (with
> aberrant initial) and Hitt. oblique kardiya- (as well as in
> Greek kardía:, Arm. sirt/srti-, BS *s'r.di-).

I continue to see no evidence for a vowel /i:/ preceding a putative
PIE alternation between /é:/ and zero. Nor do I see the need for a
preform of the -i- containing an /-n-/ at any stage. Still, it has
been my experience that other people's theories are very hard to
adjust to, and the temptation to just put them down as errors is
very great indeed. But to accept this, the field at least needs more
rhetorics.

Jens