From: Rob
Message: 40765
Date: 2005-09-27
>I'm already aware of that. What I'm saying is that nouns seem more
>
>
> ----- 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>.Yes, you're right. My mistake.