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

Rob wrote:

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

Every root of the type CVHVC should have the a: ~ i ablaut in Sanskrit. How
many such roots are there? Besides, if the verb bhaj- is of the 1st class,
so originally athematic, we should expect *bhVHg-C- > bhag-C-, and the
apophony would look like a: ~ a ~ i (full + V ~ full + C ~ reduced). Has
such an apophony survived in Sanskrit? I seem it was replaced by other
models as it was present in a small number of instances (and hence was
"irregular").

Grzegorz J.



___________________________________________________________
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com