Re: [tied] Re: passive, ingressive origins

You've lost me Torsten.
You say:
"Brugmann's law must have taken effect _after_ that point in time
where the causative suffix ... gave up its status
as an indepebndent word and became part of the verb stem."

This can only be logically necessary if Brugmann's law is prevented before
that time.
I have shown you that Brugmann's law is not prevented before that time.

Peter

Original postings follow:

> 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






Yahoo! Groups Links