Re: [tied] IE Pots and Pans (Was: Back to Slava)

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 22:57:16 +0000, elmeras2000
<jer@...> wrote:

[mcv:]

>> Allright. But that was only my subsidiary objection.

It was in fact more an objection to the way these verbs are
handled in LIV, where e.g. Latin verbs in -e:re, -eo: are
given as if they were from *-h1yé-, which is impossible.

[mcv:]

>> What about Greek (and Balto-Slavic)?
>
>You said, about Greek, "thematized late to *-éh1i-o:".

Oops, so I did. Typo. I meant (*-eih1-mi >) *-eih1-o:, of
course.

>So what would
>be wrong with *-eh1-yo:, the same as for Latin? I do not see such a
>great problem with Balto-Slavic: The infinitive-aorist has -e:-,
>which may be from *-eh1- of the aorist, the same as the Greek e:n-
>aorist. The present has -jo:, which fits Gk. khaíromai, Ved.
>já:yate, ON sitja quite well. A 1sg -jo: also goes with Baltic -i-
>in other types, and with Slavic -i- in other types, so both have
>models.

That makes no sense. The ye-verbs also have -joN, -iu. Why
would the essive/fientive, if it were from *-h1yé-, align
itself with the verbs in *-éye-/*-i-yé-, if according to the
soundlaws, *-h1yé- would have merged with *-yé anyway?

No, the only thing that can explain _all_ the forms as
actually attested is the alternation *-éh1- ~ *-éh1i- ~
*-éih1- ~ *-h1i- ~ *-&1-, strictly according to the rules as
laid down by yourself in your 1989 thesis (or at least the
summary of it in the 2-volume 1999 book). I'm sorry :-)


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...