Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:
> Strangely enough, Lubotsky doesn't even mention some of the most
> commonly quoted roots and words with *a, such as *kap- and *kan-. Some
> of the analyses (e.g. that of *k^aso-) strain all credulity. 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.
First of all, I must say that I just do not know if there were "k/g/gh" and
"a" in PIE (and in which stage), and I do not know if "k/g/gh" were
a-colouring or not. So, because I do not know, I am just asking question and
searching for possible answers, nothing more. It means that these things are
not obvious for me.
In some points I have clear opinions, though. Namely: I reject the idea that
"k/g/gh" were uvular for reasons which I tried to explain in other posts. I
also reject the idea that they were pharyngeal because I think that, from
them, only g was pharyngeal (even if only in some IE dialects / during some
stages of common IE development) - it is because I believe that some
glottalic ideas are not so improbable like others. Especially, I like the
idea of pharyngealized nature of IE plain voiced stops because this could
explain many facts: their behaviour in Balto-Slavic (Winter's rule),
glottalic stops in Sindhi, devoicing rules in Sanskrit (*gt, *gHt > kt while
*ght > gdh, *ghHt > ghit), Lachmann's rule in Latin (*ag-to- > a:ctus),
preaspirated stops in Germanic. But if *g^, *g and *gW were really all
pharyngeal, pharyngealization could not be the difference between *g and
*g^!
So, I can accept existing of the phoneme /a/ in PIE (even if I have doubts).
I can accept existing of plain velars (but not as pharyngealized). And I
really could accept the a-colouring influence of plain velars... if I
excluded other explanations, and especially if only *ka groups existed in
PIE.
I have just found an interesting article in my home library. It is a rather
long article in Russian, "Paradigmatic^eskie klassy indoevropejskogo
glagola", written by S. L. Nikolaev and S. A. Starostin. It was published in
"Balto-Slavjanskie Issledovanija 1981" (Izdatel'stvo Nauka, Moskva 1982),
pp. 261 - 343. Unfortunately, I have not found it on the Internet.
The authors present an interesting opinion, based on as many examples as
possible, that there existed 2 classes of IE verbs, and that left traces in
some IE languages. Namely, the 1st class verbs were athematic (most were
secondary thematicized next) while 2nd class verbs were thematic. This
article gives new interesting material to the discussion on IE thematic
presents but I'd like to say a word about something else.
If a 1st class verb stays athematic, we can observe ablaut like in *es-/*s-.
But, together with athematic, 1st class verbs can build many other types of
Present, like -jó/jé- and -ó/é- (4th class -ya- and 6th class -á- in
Sanskrit). All such forms should have the "null" (reduced) grade in the
root, for example
*bhergh- 'to guard' : br.háti,
*bheudh- 'to stay up, do not sleep' : búdhyate (the stress on -u- must be
secondary here because of the null grade)
*deik^- 'to point' : diçáti
*nert- 'to dance' : nr.tyati
etc.
And what if the root has the structure C1VC2 (C = stop or spirant)? And here
a problem starts because according to less or more common view we should
expect just C1C2 without a vowel. Instead of this, we observe forms with "a"
in Latin and Greek (don't let's forget that these languages are main bases
to reconstruct PIE *a): Latin cado: 'I fall', Greek dakno: 'I bite', Skr.
çaknóti 'he can', Latin capio: 'I catch'.
I think it should finally solve our problem with *kad- and *kap-: these are
just reduced grades from *ked- and *kep- (the full grades which have not
preserved). And it would be really dificult to summarize all the article,
and especially why the authors counted these verbs as 1st class verbs.
Shortly: it is based on both Present and Aorist types which are possible for
a given verb class in particular IE languages.
The root *kan- is not present in the article. But it seems canere could also
be a 1st class verb with the original structure *kVHVnV. If yes, it should
look like *kH3on- in the full grade (not *koH3n-, cf. other roots on a
sonant: *kjeu-, *k^leu-, *tken-, *pleu-) and *kH3n- in the reduced grade.
The index of the laryngeal is based on cico:nia.
And the final question is why kan- and kap- are the most commonly quoted
roots and words with *a. Maybe the answer is another question - how many
"western" scholars know the Nikolaev and Starostin's work.
>> 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.
Because of many examples of the "centum" development in Satem languages, no
form can guarantee a "plain" velar. Such an opinion is present in the
literature, and perhaps Lubotsky is one of their advocates. This is the
source of my doubts too.
> 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!
It does, in forms like Fut. bhaks.yati, Aor. abhaks.i:t, PP bhakta and so
on. Besides, thematic forms are secondary here, these are 1st class verbs
(see above). One of the cited sources (Gr. pégnumi : Skt. pajra- and loss of
laryngeals before mediae in Indo-Iranian) is available from
http://hdl.handle.net/1887/2655
===== cite =====
The thematic presents bhajati, vadati, yajati and madati are products of the
later thematisation of original athematic presents, which is confirmed by
the forms bhaks.i, ratsi, yaks.i, yaks.va, matsi and matsva, used in the RV.
as imperatives. Also in Avestan we find some remnants of the athematic
flexion of these verbs.
===== end ======
>
>> *g^heH2n-s- ~ *g^hH2n-s- for goose.
>
> If the word is onomatopoeic,
No, it is a part of the Nostratic heritage or a Wanderwort.
Grzegorz J.
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com