From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 39265
Date: 2005-07-17
> From: Miguel Carrasquer<mailto:mcv@...>Yes. I was just amending your statement, which was too
>
> On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 05:58:13 -0500, Patrick Ryan
> <proto-language@...<mailto:proto-language@...>> wrote:
>
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Miguel Carrasquer<mailto:mcv@...<mailto:mcv@...>>
> >
> > On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 05:37:03 -0500, Patrick Ryan
> > <proto-language@...<mailto:proto-language@...<mailto:proto-language@...<mailto:proto-language@...>>> wrote:
> >
> > > 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
> > *d&3-tó-.
> >
> > ***
> > Patrick:
> >
> > First off, according to Whitney, da:tá is attested. Do you dispute this?
>
> If I were, I would have used an asterisk.
>
> > We both know that PIE *o had a peculiar response in Old Indian: namely, > a:.
>
> Only in open syllables.
>
> ***
> Patrick:
>
> Well, if we start with da:- for 'give', and add -tá, we get da:tá as in the Rig Veda.
> Does that not mean that the syllable was open?
> ***I still don't see why "before the stress accent" is in any
>
> > Now you seem to be saying that *&1, *&2, and *&3 before the stress-accent, all give Old Indian -i-;
>
> Before, after and under.
>
> ***
> Patrick:
>
> Why did you delete my question without addressing it? Because you cannot answer it?
>
> I will try again:
>
> What is the difference between what you have written above and:
>
> All *& before the stress-accent give Old Indian -i-.
> ***And how the anti-laryngealists love epicycles!
>
>
> >in other words, the peculiar treatment of *o ceased to be operational.
>
> In other words, since neither *a, nor *e, nor *o give Vedic
> /i/, "put", "stood" and "given" did not contain PIE *a, *e
> or *o.
>
> ***
> Patrick:
>
> How the laryngealists love circles!
> What leads you to believe that the zero-grade of PIE *e:, *a:, and *o: in Old Indian is *e, *a, and *o?*You* said that, for Greek.