--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
wrote:
> Sihler:New Comparative grammar of Greek and Latin
> "
> 565
> Second conjunction. The -i- of the stem -itus tells us
nothing ... ,
> but comparative evidence sugggests it has more than one ancestor.
For
> causative/frequentatives such as 'monitus' "warned", the match
with
> Ved. -itá suggests in inherited formation in *-i-to-in which the *-
i-
> is the zero grade of the caus. stem ... . For statives
like 'habitus'
> ('habe:re' "have") or 'tacitus' ('tace:re' "to be silent") the
pple.
> must include zero grade of the suffix *-eH1-, namely *-ato- from
> *-H1-to-.
> "
> and to make it specific:
> "
> 61.2a
> ...'mo:tus' "mo:tus", vo:tus' "vowed" from *movetos, *vovetos,
1) ...
> Footnote 1)
> PItal. *mowatos, *wowatos; formation like 'monitus' < *monatos
> to 'moneo:'
> "
>
> So according to Sihler, there's a laryngeal stuck somewhere inside
> the -i- of 'monitus'.
>
> Or perhaps it's from *'monH1 itos' > *monH1itos > 'monitus'?
No, it's *mon-i-tó-s. A reconstruction with a laryngeal input for
the segment -i- in this word is wrong no matter who has made it. The
participle type of causatives is Skt. -itá-, Lat. -itus, Germanic *-
ida-z. The only possible common point of departure is *-itó-s.
That is not to say that laryngeal-final roots do not make
participles of their own in *-&-to-. That is not what we are dealing
with here; nor is it in fact with mo:tus which must be from *m(y)
owH1-i-tó-s, nor presumably with vo:tus which is rather from *wogWh-
i-tó-s in view of the present voveo:. There is the possibility
however that Italic made a change of its own in the "second
conjugation" by reshaping the participle to a common *-e-to-s which
would yield the same thing in Latin and would be directly reflected
in Umbrian. The reshaping would go like this: 1.conj. *-a:-yo: ~
pts. *-a:-to-s : 2.conj. *-eyo: ~ *-i-tos -> *-e-tos. I cannot see
how it could be decided whether Latin participated in this reshaping
wich is certainly valid for Umbrian.
I have lost track of your point. If it is correct that you go on
record to say that Brugmann's law only operated after the stem-
segments, i.e. root and suffix, had been pieced together, that is of
course correct, since the law is restricted to Indo-Iranian, while
the morphology is pan-IE. But I am not sure that is what you wanted
to tell us.
Jens