Re: [tied] Re: Short and long vowels

From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 39261
Date: 2005-07-17

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 5:48 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Short and long vowels

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 05:37:03 -0500, Patrick Ryan
<proto-language@...> wrote:

>  ----- Original Message -----
>  From: pielewe<mailto:wrvermeer@...>
>  --- In<>, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...<mailto:proto-language@...>...>
>  wrote:
>  >    *dhe-tó- sta-tó- *do-tó  can  be reconstructed to justify the
>  actual Greek forms.
>  >
>  >   The 'laryngeals' are unnecessary in zero-grade, and contribute no
>  useful information.
>  Yes, but you can't explain the Vedic forms on the basis of *dhe-tó-
>  sta-tó- and *do-tó, so the laryngeals must have been present at the
>  latest common stage underlying Greek and Vedic.
>  Unless I have misunderstood something really basic.
>  ***
>  Patrick:
>  Well, let's try.
>  for *dhe:-, the Vedic participle is dhitá
>  for *sta:-, the Vedic participle is sthitá
>  for *do:-,  the Vedic participle is da:tá but Epic di-tá
>  I am not sure I see the problem.

The problem is that your ?*dhe-tó-, ?*sta-tó- and ?*do-tó-
would have given Vedic *dhatá-, *statá- and da:tá-, so the
former cannot be the PIE forms.

The proper reconstructions are *dh&1-tó-, *st(h)&2-tó- and

First off, according to Whitney, da:tá is attested. Do you dispute this?
We both know that PIE *o had a peculiar response in Old Indian: namely, > a:.
Now you seem to be saying that *&1, *&2, and *&3 before the stress-accent, all give Old Indian -i-; in other words, the peculiar treatment of *o ceased to be operational.
How does what you write differ from this version:
*& before the stress-accent gives Old Indian -i-?