On Wed, 26 May 2004 02:07:17 +0200 (MET DST), Jens Elmegaard
Rasmussen <
jer@...> wrote:
>On Wed, 26 May 2004, Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
>
>>
>> I still fail to understand why the reduplicated desiderative
>> is not *<cicitsat>. Why is that?
>
>Do I have to know that?
No, an answer or attempt at explanation from anyone else is
also welcome.
>You seem to be clutching at the weakest of straws, I don't see you
>being objective here at all.
How is asking questions "not being objective", or "clutching
at straws"? I have no theory about the Indo-Iranian
intensive. I had never studied it before. I had seen it
mentioned in the literature as a reduplicated o-grade
formation, so I assumed it was that. Seeing the actual
Vedic forms, which as Macdonell rightly says, are
"inflected, in both active and middle, like a verb of the
third or reduplicated class", left me somewhat puzzled as to
the confidence with which these forms have been claimed to
show o-grade, especially seeing that LIV has only two or
three non-Indo-Iranian parallels to offer, none of which
show o-grade, and none of which I think firmly establish the
reduplicated intensive as a verbal category in PIE.
I'm not saying the intensive didn't have o-grade. I was
merely wondering whether there were additional reasons to
think that the absence of palatalization of velars in this
case can be explained _only_ through o-grade, when other
possibilities are imaginable. I haven't heard any yet.
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...