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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob" <magwich78@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 8:57 AM
Subject: Re: ka and k^a [was: [tied] *kW- "?"]


--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 19:35:04 +0200 (CEST), Mate Kapoviæ
> <mkapovic@...> wrote:
>
> > Just a quick thought - couldn't the a/a: in OI be secondary to
> > a/a: in cases like pa:t, pá:dam, padás or such? Wouldn't the
> > pattern a:/i be a wee bit too aberrant?
>
> It's common enough in verbs, but you're right that I can't
> think of any examples of a: ~ i alternation in nouns.

There seems to be an analogy to this in the Germanic languages, where
nominal morphology was more subject to levelling than verbal. The
only alternations in the former are the umlaut plurals (e.g. English
_foot_ ~ _feet_ (< *fo:t ~ *fo:tiz), German _Hand_ ~ _Händer_ (<
*hand ~ *handiz)). However, there are plenty of alternations in the
latter, namely between the present, preterite, and passive
participles of "strong" verbs (e.g. English _sing_ ~ _sang_ ~
_sung_). Does this behavior approach a rule in human language?

- Rob

***
Patrick:

No. These changes are purely phonological.

The word is <Hände>.

***




Yahoo! Groups Links