Re: Early PAlb Depalatisations of k', g' > k, g

From: alexandru_mg3
Message: 38996
Date: 2005-06-30

I.
> >Indo-European reconstruction: k^le:uH-
>
> Derksen doesn't mean that *k^le:uH- would have given
> *s'lo:u(?)-, which is impossible. He means that the PIE
> _root_ can be reconstructed as *k^le:uH- (which is
> doubtful). BS *s'lo:u(?)- would then be o-grade.
>

I doubt. Dersken clearly indicates the derivations, even the endings
are present whenever they are clear enough. Please check.


II.
> That rule is surely wrong (see Derksen: kleg-/klek-,
> kleNc^ati, kleNtI, klik-, kljuc^I, and I stopped checking
> there).
>

Could you indicate me Dersken's pages for these words.
I mean the url-s? I couldn't find them.


III.
> >So for sure the PIE was k^le:uH-. and not *k^low-
>
> Slava and s^love: are certainly not from *k^le:uH-.
>
> They are innner-Balto-Slavic lengthened grade from *s^law- >
> *s^la:w-. *s^law- itself can come from *k^low-, or as
> Sergejus rightly remarked, from *k^lew-. It depends on
> whether the lengthening from a to a: took place before or
> after the development ew > aw (and eu > jau).


a) Miguel, only to clarify: you have said *k^low not *k^lew.
Viewing this I said: "if klausyti is from *k^low (and it is)
šlove couldn't be for k^low too (->as you initially have said)"
So is not *k^low- or *k^lew- as you tried to say above. Is
either *k^low- or *k^lew-, but *k^low- couldn't be in any case, so
remain *k^lew-
And this is indicated/depends on the output k^l > k^l in
opposition with k^l > kl. Or do you think that there is no de-
palatisation in Balto-Slavic?


b) Next the discussion is : it is *k^le:w- as Derksen proposed or
it is *k^lew- as Serghei have said.
In both situations there are still some workarounds to be done
for Baltic and Slavic forms.
But either was e: or e this form respect Kortland's rule.
Kortlandt himself indicates šlove as an example to his rule...

So (excluding myself from this equation) there are three persons
that reject *klow : Derksen, Kortlandt and Sergei: all of them "see"
an *e/e: in the PIE form and not an *o.

Best Regards,
Marius