From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 33039
Date: 2004-06-02
>> >I recognize that line of reasoning wrt. /e/ > /i/ in the verbalAnd
>> >prefixes from Trask. Could the same rule have applied also on
>nouns,
>>
>> Apparently not.
>
>You have no way of knowing that.
>You reconstruct /e/ > /i/ for the verbal prefix because you know
>1) it's a prefix
>2) in the same place a majority of verbs have /e/
>Therefore it's natural to try to seek a common origin for both /i-/Actually, it *does* happen in nouns. I'd forgotten about
>and /e-/ in verbs.
>The same situation doesn't apply in nouns. Therefore if there had
>been a rule /e/ > /i/ in nouns, we wouldnt know.
>> >so that ibai < *ebai (there's nothing to stop one from assuming ah- is never a problem in Basque. It's presence or not has
>> >lost h- in all verbs)?
>>
>
>> What do you mean?
>>
>
>If I were to claim that <ibai> was related to one the other words
>that came up in the discussion, the initial h- of the oldest
>documented form would be a problem. I'd have to postulate in initial
>h- for the other words as well.
>I notice that you yourselfIt's *p-, *t-, *k-, *h- or *0-.
>http://makeashorterlink.com/?J5F725478
>have proposed that the prefix /e-/ or /i-/ derives from /He-/ in your
>Pre-Pre-Basque. I assume /H/ is some laryngeal?
>It might have leftSo you're claiming <ibai> is from a verbal root? It can't
>the initial /h/ in the oldest forms of <ibai>.