Re: ka and k^a [was: [tied] *kW- "?"]

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
wrote:

> Strangely enough, Lubotsky doesn't even mention some of the most
> commonly quoted roots and words with *a, such as *kap- and *kan-.

Those could very well be loanwords, IMO.

> Some of the analyses (e.g. that of *k^aso-) strain all credulity.

How so?

> Some rather plausible counterarguments are just dismissed without
> any discussion (e.g., why can't Slavic *s^e^rU reflect Germanic
> *xaira-?), and the problem of *laiwo- (one could add a few similar
> words) is noted but no solution is offered.

Can you explain that counterargument in more detail?

How realistic would a form *lexiwos be in IE?

> > Of the previously mentioned by me, Lubotsky gives the following
> > reconstructions: *bheH2g^- for bhajati / phagein,
>
> An obvious mistake. IIr. *bHaga- guarantees a "plain" velar, so the
> Skt. palatal in <bHajati> must have been generalised from
> *bHag-e-ti etc. I don't understand at all how Lubotsky proposes to
> get rid of the alleged laryngeal in this word. Not that I accept
> his rule that laryngeals were lost before media + another
> consonant, but his example doesn't even fall under it!

That is a good question. One would expect *bhxgéti to become
*bhijati, not _bhajati_ as attested.

> > *g^heH2n-s- ~ *g^hH2n-s- for goose.
>
> If the word is onomatopoeic, and I think it is, something like
> *g^Han(s)- (especially if the *g^H was a true velar once upon a
> time) is preferable to a laryngeal-stuffed goose. The greylag goose
> goes more or less like "aNg-aNg-aNg", which people may also hear
> as "gaN-gaN-gaN".

Aren't onomatopoeic terms normally used to describe previously
unknown animals (e.g. the whippoorwill)? However, I agree that geese
make a sort of "gaN-gaN-gaN" sound.

- Rob