From: Patrick Ryan
----- Original Message -----From: Miguel CarrasquerSent: Monday, July 18, 2005 12:39 AMSubject: Re: [tied] Re: Short and long vowels; the explanation of Old Indian /i/ as zero-grade <a:>On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 23:19:48 -0500, Patrick Ryan
> PIE is the only language in the world for which 'coloring' laryngeals have been proposed.***
Open any book on, say, Arabic phonology.***Patrick:I have several books on Arabic, and have opened them.***
> The base form is takS- for this verb. Do you see a long <a:> in it?
Of course not. Vedic roots are listed in their Paninian
form, i.e. in the zero-grade.***Patrick:You are a font of misinformation!On page 119, I read "bhâ, scheinen". Is that a zero-grade root?***
The present is given in LIV as a Narten-present, with
full-grade *té:tk^-, weak-grade *tétk^-.***Patrick:More misleading information.The root is listend under the heading *tetk^- in LIV. And that is not zero-grade! What proves this? The listing for *demh2- (not *dMh2-, zero-grade). The aorist is listed as *tétk^-/t<e>tk^, full-grade and zero-grade.The present tense full grade is, to be sure, *té:tk^- but the note attached to it says: "Iterativ-durativ 'zusammenbauen, zimmern', Oppositionspräsens zum Wurzelaor."In other words, the present tense vowel has been lengthened to provide a contrast with the root aorist; the long vowel is secondary.Incidentally, LIV has *ped- 'treten; fallen, sinken' with a root aorist *péd-.***
> Pokorny shows "pad-, Fuß"; do you dispute this is the base form for Old Indian
Again, the root is given, by convention, in its "zero"-grade
pad-, corresponding to PIE *ped-.***Patrick:*ped- is not zero-grade; according to LIV, pd- is zero-grade.*bho:i-, be afraid, is a heading in Pokorny; is that zero-grade???The first item under it is bháyate:; is that zero-grade???Where are you getting such strange ideas?***
> > 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.
> Old Persian is subsequent to Iranian. There is not reason I know that Indo-Iranian /a:y/ could not have become /a:I/ by Old Persian times.
So you agree that it's silly to posit Indo-Iranian *-ayi for
what was obviously *-a:y?
***Patrick:Is it impossible for you to stick with a topic?***