[tied] Re: passive, ingressive origins

> Let's start with Sanskr. ma:nṡti. Since Brugmann's law has
> applied, the -a:- is the result of -o- in an open syllable, thus:
> PIE *mo-né­¹e-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-é¹¥-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.


> 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.

No, I'm not. I'm saying that if a morpheme CVC and a morpheme VCV in
sequence are spoken as CV-CV-CV, they might still once have
independent words. That'a approximately the oppposite of what you
think I'm saying


Torsten