On Tue, 25 May 2004 14:51:58 +0000, elmeras2000
<
jer@...> wrote:
>Now, if stautan is in origin instead an Indo-European intensive of
>the type of Vedic vár-vart-mi, 3pl vár-vr.t-ati from IE *w(e)r-wórt-
>ti, *wér-wr.t-n.ti
LIV would have it as *wér-wort-ti, *wér-wr.t-n.ti. Why do
you reconstruct the singular with accent on the actual root?
And what's the evidence for o-grade in the singular? No
non-Indo-Iranian form with /o/ is given in LIV. I can see
that I-I intensives starting with a (labio-)velar do not
palatalize, but that may also be consistent with zero grade
throughout (followed by analogical gun.ation of the
singular). Am I correct in thinking that o-grade is assumed
based on a form like {cit}, int. ce:kit- (where zero-grade
would have palatalized, and k- is explicable as analogical
after a singular *kek-koit-)? If so, why does LIV not
reconstruct o-grade for the reduplicated desiderative, which
is <cikitsat> in Vedic? Or are all the k-'s in these
reduplicated formations just analogical after the perfect?
And if so, what evidence remains for /o/ in the intensive?
I obviously can't comment on the rest until I understand the
shape of the PIE intensive.
I'd look into two things:
Is the reduplicative vowel a: in the Vedic perfect due to
the root starting with a laryngeal? Of the seven examples
given by Macdonell, only one (gr. < *h1ger-) has an initial
laryngeal, as far as I can determine. Therefore, I don't
think the pehnomenon can be explained away by initial
laryngeals.
Would a locative *udén(i)/*wedén(i) have given widá(:)n in
Hittite? According to Melchert, it would. But so would
*wedénas (-> *witanas). The accent doesn't matter. Now
that would be an argument in favour of witenas = *wednós, as
I was arguing. For the rest, I'm not completely convinced
by Melchert's argument (-anzi _can_ be analogical after
-n.ti and -onti, and what about 1pl. -wén(i), 2pl. -tén(i)
[besides -wan(i), -tan(i)]?)
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...