[tied] Re: Mi- and hi-conjugation in Germanic

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 23:20:16 +0000, elmeras2000
> <jer@...> wrote:
>
> >--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...>

wrote:

> >
> >> >[JER:]
> >> >> >The word ve^dró is a vrddhi formation *we:d-r-ó-

'associated

> >with
> >> >> >water'.
> >> >>
> >> >> I doubt it. The length looks like Winter's law.
> >> >
> >> >Length looks like length, sure. A cluster /dr/ is one of the
> >> >barriers to the operation of Winter's lengthening.
> >>
> >> Another fine example is *udráh2 > vy"dra (Latv. ûdr(i)s,
> >> Ved. udrá-).
> >
> >You make it sound as if this is just another one out of a million.
>
> I meant it was another fine example of my jábloko-rule (like
> the others I found when looking for something completely
> different: i"go, and perhaps ju"gU [if connected to Grk.
> augé:], and then (j)u"tro if connected to ju"gU).
>
> For Winter's lengthening before -dr- it's not just another
> example, it's the one that first to mind when thinking about
> vêdró.
>
> >I don't think I know of any examples of apparent lengthening

before

> >media + sonant other than vêdró and vy"dra. For vêdró independent
> >length is a very obvious possibility. For vy"dra I only notice

that

> >the feminine (or generic) form of an animal name is combined with
> >vrddhi in Lith. várna (1) and Germanic Huhn. I would therefore
> >assume that the most likely explanation of its length is that the
> >vowel was long already before any working of Winter's law. If

Lith.

> >ú:dras (3) and Latv. ûdrs have taken over the long vowel from

ú:dra

> >(1), then vy"dra does not need to have ever changed the position

of

> >its accent. The BSl. forms would be masc. *u:drá-s, fem. *ú:dra:,
> >levelled from *udrá-s, *ú:dra:; if one distinguishes the genders

it

> >is precisely masc. udrá-, fem. húdra: that is quotable from

Sanskrit

> >and Greek (whose masc. húdros is then due to levelling).
>
> Is it really necessary to set up a whole zoo of analogies,

Come, come, temper. There is no excessive amount of analogy in
ú:dra : ûdrs, and there must be some in húdros : udrá-s anyway.

> when there's a simpler solution: Winter's lengthening works
> in both vy"dra and vêdró? What's so terrible anyway about
> Winter's law working before -dr-? Note that the phonetics
> of -dr- are very different from the phonetics of -dn- (where
> Winter's law indeed didn't work).

You mean specifically before /dr/? Well, everything should be
considered. Or do you mean specifically before /br/, /dg/, /gr/?
There is nothing terrible about accepting anything the material
shows. The question just is, what does it show?

> In your 1992 article, you present the counterexamples Lith.
> gie~dras (gaidrùs), Latv. idrs, OCS dUbrU and pigùs (~
> *pigrós).

>The Latvian word I find unclear (and Grk. oi~dos
> is barytone).

Do you now? The accent of the Greek s-stem has no bearing on the
matter. Trautmann BSl.Wb cites idrs as meaning 'mürbe', and idra as
denoting 'faules Mark eines Baumes'. The IE type is plainly that of
Ved. ug-rá-, cit-rá-. r.j-rá-, Gk. eruth-ró-s with zero-grade root
before the accented suffix. The cognates denote swelling and tumors
implying unpleasant decay of the body. It looks like a fine
etymology, one we would use if we were sure about the sound rules.
Now, to set the rules, it has to be subjected to the most critical
inspection there is, and of course it can be wrong. Thus, it
invites, but does not strictly prove the inference that -dr- blocked
Winter's lengthening.

> The OCS word doesn't exist (it's dUbrI, Old
> Russ. dIbrI, which may have a different etymology, or have
> its vocalism after *dUbnó).

Right, the wrong jer got drawn here at some point; I'm sure that's
gonna happen again. The idea I'm reporting is that dUbrI is a
substantival variant of *dUbrU (which I'd better make sure gets its
asterisk), which would be a perfectly well-formed IE adjective *dhub-
ró- 'deep', identical with Toch.B tapre 'high'. Now, again, there is
Latvian dubra 'Pfütze, morastige Stelle'. That could of course all
reflect initial accent on contrasting substantives, but then what is
the remaining *dub-ú-? Is there much point in departing from radical
accent in adjectival u-stems? That type quite certainly had suffixal
accent in IE.

> That leaves gie~dras/gaidrùs
> and *pigros, of which the first can easily have acquired
> *-dh- from the word of identical meaning reflected in Slavic
> as védro (Russ. vëdro) [a remarkable a.p. a word, by the
> way], and in English as "weather".

Please tell us how easily this goes. There is a whole mythology
attached to a Wetter-Gesetz, so it would be interesting to see
something easy.

Derksen (Baltistica 37, 2002, 10) calls attention to Z^em. gíedras
and Latv. dzi~drs 'azure, clean' beside standard dzidrs 'clear'.
That does not make it any easier. Was it *gWhid-ró-, comparative
*gWháyd-i:os? And did -dr- block Winter's lengthening, so that it
yielded *gidrá-/*gá:id-? This will need the zoo of analogy under any
theory.

> And pigùs may not be a
> replacement of *pigros after all, but simply a barytone
> u-stem, secondarily mobilized, like su:nùs.

Sure, there is no evidence for the existence of a direct reflex of
*pig-ro- in Balto-Slavic. I never said there was. But zero-grade u-
stem adjectives were not barytone in IE.

> I've looked if there were any other non-lengthenings in
> Slavic. I found only bedrò and jeNdrò. In the case of
> jeNdrò lengthening may simply be there as it is in vêdrò, we
> just don't see it. The word bedrò (also bedrà, after the
> plural), pl. R. bëdra "thigh" is used mainly in the plural,
> where Winter's lengtening is blocked by the accent
> (*bhédrah2). A singular *bêdro could hardly not have adopted
> the vocalism of the plural.

Sounds fine. But does the -d- have to be unaspirated?

Jens