[tied] The 'lamb' word [Was: Re: Mi- and hi-conjugation in Germanic]

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
wrote:

> On 05-03-19 16:25, elmeras2000 wrote:
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
> >> ... vr.ddhi applied ad hoc?).
> >
> > I meant the latter. With words of unknown derivation we do
> > everything ad hoc.
>
> Not quite. The assumption of Winter's Law in *h2agWno- or a

derivative

> thereof is not ad hoc. It explains the length in the most economic

way

> by invoking a BSl. change which certainly operated in similar
> environments, even if we know of still unexplained exceptions. An
> original short vowel represents the unmarked grade and as such

does not

> call for a special explanation, while vrddhi is a marked state,

and

> _unmotivated_ vrddhi is sure to create more problems than it can

solve.

> Ockham's Razor applies here.

I disagree completely. The word is not structured at all - it
contains no known root, and its presumed suffix *-no- does not do
anything observable here. We can't decide the vowel is originally
short just because we don't know anything about it. This is the
stuff simple mistakes are made of.

What do you mean when you say the presumed etymon *explains* the
form in an economic way? Surely a protoform with a long vowel
involving no change would be even more economic. And, in case that
matters, how unmotivated would a vrddhi form be in a word denoting
the young of an animal? That looks to me like a functional component
that could very well be signalled by a vrddhi structure; also the
accented thematic vowel structure is fully compatible with vrddhi.

I feel it is safest to add this: I am not saying the vowel of jagneN
*was* long to begin with, I only say we do not know it wasn't.

Jens