From: tgpedersen
Message: 39425
Date: 2005-07-25
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "elmeras2000" <jer@...> wrote:I
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham"
> > <richard.wordingham@...> wrote:
>
> > > I can see only two objections:
> > >
> > > a) Polysyllabic stems
> > > b) Unpredictability of stress.
> >
> > The
> > desired extra vowels have been put in just for this purpose. As
> > have just written in a response to Tom Brophey, the monosyllabich2g^
> > nature of the IE root is not a thing to be given up lightly.
>
> > > There are many roots currently reconstructed as ending in *-
> > whichso
> > > may actually be compounds of *h2eg^ (make that **hag^) 'lead',
> > itnotation)
> > > is not obvious that these are insuperable objections.
> > >
> > > So what is the problem with these roots?
> >
> > What "many roots" are you talking about? Would (Pokorny-
> > *pa:g^/k^- 'fix' be a compound? Would *wa:g^- 'split'? Of courseseen
> > everything has a prehistory, but is it always transparent to us?
>
> 'Many' does seem to be an overstatement. I thought the lists I'd
> were longer. There's been some previous discussion here,epitomised
> by http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/24015 andPMP.
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/23999 . Neither
> *pa:g^/k^- 'fix' nor *wa:g^- 'split' was listed in those postings.
>
> Incidentally, are there any deeper thoughts on the origin of
> *pa:g^/k^- 'fix'? I'd like to show it's unrelated to the
> Proto-Malayo-Polynesian roots *ipen / *lipen / *nipen / *ngipen
> 'tooth'. The question arose when I was trying to show that English
> _fang_ and Thai _fan_ 'tooth' were totally unrelated. Thai _fan_
> appears to derive from a proto-form very close to *lipen ( -
> proto-form cited as *l-p&n for the Kra branch, with & = schwa), and
> the Austronesian element in Thai appears to be closely related to
> I'm not completely sure the -n- seen in various derivatives of PIEinfix.
> *pa:g^/k^ is *historically*, as opposed to synchronically, an
> I can't convince myself that pnh2g^ > pah2g^ didn't happen in pre-PIE.
>That must have been my clue. Voilà: