--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Rob" <magwich78@...> wrote:
> Do you have any thoughts about where the long root vocalism came
> from?
I would consider it iconic. It was one of Schindler's observations
that the o/e root-noun type denoted acts or actors of an iterative
or durative nature. So it's durative vocalism expressing a durative
semantic element. Since the o/e type is just a variant of the e:/e
type (which does not occur in Schindler's root nouns, because none
of them are neuters), I can extend the explanation to acrostatic
verbs where it would then denote the durative nature of
the "present" aspect.
[]
>
> I assume that you attribute the difference in vowel quality
between
> *po:d- and *ye:kW- to voiced vs. unvoiced following consonants?
> What about *(xW)re:gs, however? According to your theory, it
should
> be *(xW)ro:gs.
No, the o-timbre of *pó:d-s is in my view from a superlong *pé::d-s,
which came about by lengthening of *pé:d-s. 'Liver' was a neuter and
so had no lengthening. As for re:x etc., I do not know of any vowel
gradation, so I cannot really see what sort of paradigm it has
originally been.
> You've stated earlier that pretonic /e/ draws the accent. Why do
> you believe that to be so, in phonological/phonetic terms?
It would amount to introduction of initial accent. Many languages
have done that: Czech, Icelandic, Irish, Latvian come to mind.
What's wrong with that?
Jens