[tied] Re: Ie. *laywos/leh2iwos (was: ka and k^a)

From: tgpedersen
Message: 40747
Date: 2005-09-27

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
wrote:
> tgpedersen wrote:
>
> >>No, the a- is explained well enough by *h2-[*],
> >
> >
> > Only if you assume *h2e-; if /a/ is preserved, rather than
produced
> > by h2 there's nothing wrong in *h2aN-.
>
> But *a doesn't seem to have disappeared in the nil grade, while we
have
> clear reflexes of PIE *-h2p- in compounds such as Skt. dvi:pá- <
> *dwi-h2p-ó-. Also, the strong cases in Indo-Iranian have *a: (Ved.
> nom.pl. a:pas, Av. acc.sg. a:pm), which looks like a Brugmannian
> lengthening of *o, so we should reconstruct *h2ó:p-s, nom.pl. *h2op-
es,
> acc.sg. *h2op-m., gen.sg. *h2ap-ós, with the same apophony as in
> *pod-/*ped-. All this points to *h2a- < **h2e- in this word.
>


You misunderstand me. I was talking about whether Miguel assumed the
ablaut vowel to be *e or *a in _pre-PIE_, not PIE.

So either
pre-PIE *a > PIE *e/o/zero
pre-PIE *h2a > PIE *h2a
(my preference)

or

pre-PIE *e > PIE *e/o/zero
pre-PIE *h2e > PIE *h2a
(Miguel's preference?)

And with the first set of rules, we'd have pre-PIE *h2aN-


Torsten