Re: [tied] *kap-

From: Rob
Message: 40807
Date: 2005-09-28

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "etherman23" <etherman23@...> wrote:

> Two voiceless stops isn't a problem. Two voiced stops is. So that's
> not the issue here. There's two problems. First is that a single
> reconstruction isn't possible. Some languages point to *kap, others
> to *kabh, and others to *ghabh. It would be an odd coincidence if
> these were separate roots that just happen to be very similar. Of
> course if it's a loanword then we'd expect difficulty in
> reconstructing a single form. The second problem is the occurance
> of *a. It's not supposed to exist in PIE. Personally I have no
> problem with this because I think PIE did have an *a. But if we
> take the view that every *a actually comes from *H2e then we have a
> problem. We'd expect IIr. **khap in the full grade or **k(h)ip in
> the zero grade. Neither of these appear in Pokorny. Instead we have
> kapati, an expected development from *kapeti.

If the *k was unaspirated in InIr, we would expect zero-grade *cip-.
This would probably be too divergent to be preserved in alternation
with *kap-.

- Rob