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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > The imperfect seems to be based on a verbal form in -e:
> > > (*-eh1), either an instrumental or a "stative", I'm really
> > > unsure about what it is exactly, followed by the preterit of
> > > *bhuah2- "to be": ama:-e:-ba:- > a:ma:ba(:)-; de:le:-e:-ba:
> > > > de:le:ba(:)-; audi:-e:-ba:- > audie:ba(:)-; em-e:-ba:- >
> > > eme:ba(:)-). The same base is found in the Slavic imperfect
> > > (nes-e:-axU), exept that the auxiliary there is *h1es-
> > > (preterit *e-es-> e:s-).
> > >
> >
> > I wasn't aware of any -h2- in *bhuah2-, I'm tempted to analyse

it

> > *bhu- + -ah2- which makes it a factitive verb, and *bhu- some

type

> > of adjectival form; w-participle? That would make *ama:-e:-

bam "I

> am
> > made having been *ama:-e:-".
> >
> > Another thing is that if Piotr's rule Bw- > B-, for B labial, is
> > right, then
> > *bhuah2- "be" = *bhah2- "appear"
> >
>
> And if Miguel's rule -k# > -x# holds then *bhax- = *bhak- > Latin
> facio:, cf fa:cundus, supposedly from for, fa:ri, and fua:s, fuat

=

> facia:s, faciat (cf pre-Greek gunex, gunak- "woman").
>

Ernout-Meillet (which Jasanoff quotes) has
(under 'facere') 'calefacere', 'a:refacare', old 'cale
facere', 'a:re facere', and since 'facere' should take an infinitive
they venture the guess that 'cale(:)' and 'are(:)' (which apparently
is exactly the verbal form in *-e: Miguel is looking for (see the
top of this posting), cf 'cale:bat') are some type of infinitives.
Jasanoff plays it down to them being verbal nouns, which is fine
with me; result: 'facere' takes a verbal noun of whatever kind,
including infinitives.

The ppp of the ablative absolute in -tó- might as well once have
been a verbal noun in -t-, cf. Slavic infinitives in -ti.




Torsten