From: Patrick Ryan
----- Original Message -----From: Miguel CarrasquerSent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 5:48 AMSubject: Re: [tied] Re: Short and long vowelsOn Sun, 17 Jul 2005 05:37:03 -0500, Patrick Ryan
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: pielewe<mailto:wrvermeer@...>
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org<mailto:email@example.com>, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...<mailto:proto-language@...>...>
> > *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.
> 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
***Patrick: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-?