[tied] Re: *bhe-, -y, -w

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

> tgpedersen wrote:
>
> >>The -i- belongs to the suffix, not to the root, which loses its

*w as

> >>a result of cluster reduction: Gmc. *bwijo: > *bijo: (> OE

be:o),

> >
> > etc.
> > Which suffix is that? -ye/o-? Which is unstressed in fio:?
>
> In Italic, the suffix is simply *-jé/ó-, the extremely common

suffix of

> present stems (the unextended root *bheuh2- had an aorist

meaning). The

> West Germanic form looks more like a reflex of (iterative?) *bHuh2-

éje-,

> but this may be so just because *-je- and *-eje- fell together in
> Germanic as allomorphs governed by Siever's Law (*-j-/*-ij-).

'Iterative' 'be'?

>One may
> add that, because of the existence of alternative roots for 'to

be'

> (*es-, *wes-) in Germanic, analogical restructuring is very common

in

> their paradigms.

How does that follow?

>Forms like OHG bim (OE beom), bis(t) (not to mention
> birum, birut) are not inherited but analogical.

Analogical to what?? Afaik 'pim' is the only verb in OHG with that
athematic ending. And it's 'pim'; 'bim' is taken over from dialects
further north.

>
> >>(cf. *ph2w- > *fw- > f- in Goth. fo:n).
> >
> > *ph2w- > *fw- > f-, therefore *bhw- > *bw- > *b- ? Maybe it's a

good

> > thing you only wrote 'cf.'
>
> What's wrong here? Think about it as a phonotactic filter: *w was
> disallowed in syllable onsets after labial obstruents -- a rather

common

> kind of ban.
>

One thing that's wrong is your presentation of it: Induction of the
style Popper didn't like results in an unstated rule from which you
deduce the rule you desired. That's not proof. It shows possibility,
not necessity.


Torsten