Re: [tied] Re: passive, ingressive origins

You're suggesting, Torsten, that when a word CVC and a word VCV in sequence
are spoken as CV-CV-CV, then the second can no longer be an independent
word. But this is what happens in Latin, Greek and Sanskrit verse all the
time, and they remain separate words. If you need an example, consider
Aeneid 1:56
celsa sedet Aeolus arce
"Aeolus sits on his high seat." You cannot suggest that Aeolusarce is a
single word.
Furthermore, there seems no reason why this Latin-Greek-Sanskrit pattern
should not be inherited from PIE. Your argument therefore is not convincing.

Peter

Original posting:

Let's start with Sanskr. ma:náyati. Since Brugmann's law has
applied, the -a:- is the result of -o- in an open syllable, thus:
PIE *mo-né-ye-ti, written out in syllables (Brugmann's law uses the
terms 'open syllable', therefore 'syllable' must be a permissible
term in linguistics, in spite of your criticism of it). But written
out in morphemes, the same word is *mon-éye-ti. The syllable
boundary and the morpheme boundary dont match after the root. Thus
Brugmann's law must have taken effect _after_ that point in time
where the causative suffix, whatever its origin, gave up its status
as an indepebndent word and became part of the verb stem.