Re: [tied] Re: Short and long vowels; the explanation of Old Indian

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 18:29:27 -0500, Patrick Ryan
<proto-language@...> wrote:

> From: Miguel Carrasquer<mailto:mcv@...>
> > ***
> > Patrick:
> >
> > Now I am really surprised at you. What happened to sthitá??? Is that not from *aH?
>
> No. It's from *sth2tó-.
>
>
> ***
> Patrick:
>
> Forgive me, but you are being obtuse.
>
> sthitá is from sthá:- which is from *sthaH-.

It's from *steh2-.

> > ***
> >
> > Not for <a:> from */o/ in an open syllable, nor for <a:>
> > derived from PIE long */e:/ (the zero grade of both is <a>).
> >
> > ***
> > Patrick:
> >
> > Is it late at night where you are writing?
> >
> > You are making no sense at all.
> >
> > Above this, on this page, you affirmed that Old Indian <a:> comes from PIE *eH and *oH.
>
> And you affirmed (correctly!) that "[i]n open syllables, *o
> was further modified to <a:>".
>
> Now I don't know what exact chronology you have in mind, but
> I merely wanted to point out that not all Indo-Iranian
> /a:/'s have a zero-grade /i/. Just the ones with a
> laryngeal origin.
>
> ***
> Patrick:
>
> And what is the source for these other Indo-Iranian <a:>'s?

/o/ (Brugmann), /o:/, /e:/.

> ***
>
>
> > Pre-PIE *eH becomes PIE *e: which in turn becomes Old Indian <a:>.
> >
> > For all Old Indian <a:>, the zero-grade is <i>.
>
> Obviously not.
>
> ***
> Patrick:
>
> Prove it.
>
> ***
>
> > ______________________
> >
> > If you do not believe this, give me one example of PIE *e: which became Old Indian <a:> which has the zero-grade <a>.
>
> 3sg. ta:s.t.i -- 3pl. taks.ati
>
> ***
> Patrick:
>
> You have been learning tricks from someone else on the list; when in doubt, change the subject. I am not prepared in this series of postings to discuss every exception to the rule under the sun.

You cannot just ignore Narten verbs.

> What I clearly implied was: show me a -tá participle that had a base form with <a:> that does not show up as <i> in the participle.

tas.t.a-

>Your changing of the subject shows it is either difficult or impossible.
>
> But because your example is so silly, I will make an exception.
>
> The verbal root is taks.-.
>
> Notice, no long vowel.
>
> The 3rd p. sing. should be taks.ti. For ease of pronounciation, the /k/ has been eliminated, and the vowel has been compensatorily lengthened.

No such rule in Vedic. The verb ta:ks.-/taks.- makes a
Narten present, like a number of others (ks.n.(a)u-, y(a)u-,
n(a)u-, st(a)u-, m(a:)rj-, etc.). The weak forms (e.g. the
present plural) of these verbs show /a/ (or zero).

> This has no bearing whatsoever on anything we have been discussing, and I resent your wasting my time with it.
>
> ***
>
>
> ***
> > ______________________
> >
> > Also, do you have even one example of PIE *o, which because of it being in an open syllable, became Old Indian <a:> which has the zero-grade <a>? If so, provide it.
>
> nom/acc. pa:t, pa:dam -- gen. padas (etc.)
>
>
> ***
> Patrick:
>
> Same comments as above.
>
> We have pa:t as a result of a reduction from *pads. The genitive shows the original vowel. The accusative has been improperly built on the nominative.

No, we have *po:ds, *podm., *pedos, which regularly gives
pa:t, pa:dam, padah. in Vedic.

> Really! Where is the 'laryngeal' is all this.

There isn't one. That was the point.

> Again, you seem to be blissfully unaware of Iranian. Old
> Persian writes Ca-a-i for /a:i/, as opposed to Ca-i for
> /ai/. And the Old Persian syllabary had a sign for /yi/.
>
> ***
> Patrick:
>
> I am never blissful at being unaware of anything.
>
> Since I dabble in Sumerian, I am full aware of plene spellings.
>
> So what significance do you believe the Old Persian 'revelations' have for this discussion?

Their significance is that /a:/ was never */ay/, and /a:y/
was never */ayi/. Your theory about /a:/ being /ay/ < /aç/
was sort of tenable, but only if you do not know a thing
about Iranian.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...