Re: [tied] Re: Gypsies again

----- Original Message -----
From: "Miguel Carrasquer" <mcv@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2005 4:24 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Gypsies again


> On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 15:02:17 -0500, Patrick Ryan
> <proto-language@...> wrote:
>
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Miguel Carrasquer" <mcv@...>
> >To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> >Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2005 2:04 PM
> >Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Gypsies again
> >
> >
> >> On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 08:27:40 -0500, Patrick Ryan
> >> <proto-language@...> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Now there certainly is a variation in Indo-Iranian between <a> and
> >> ><Ø>,
> >> >and
> >> >we can justifiably call that Ablaut.
> >> >
> >> >And we certainly have <a:> as well as <a>.
> >> >
> >> >But why do you not show me an *o-grade in the perfect singular, for
> >> >openers?
> >>
> >> 3sg. caká:ra. The /a:/ must come from /o/.
> >>
> >> =======================
> >> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> >> mcv@...
> >
> >***
> >Patrick:
> >
> >And why is that?
> >
> >Old Indian <a:> can come from PIE *e:, *a:, or *o: according to the
> >current
> >theory.
>
> And *o in an open syllable (Brugmann's law).
>
> >What disproves that Old Indian simply used vRddhi where non-Old Indian
> >used
> >/o/?
>
> The paradigm goes:
>
> cakára
> cakártha
> caká:ra
> cakr.má
> etc.
>
> Notice that the singular has */o/:
>
> *k(W)e-k(W)ór-h2a => cakára
> *k(W)e-k(W)ór-th2a => cakártha
> *k(W)e-k(W)ór-e => caká:ra
>
> No other vowel will produce an /a:/ in the 3sg. only.
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...

***
Patrick:

I am under the impression that the conversion upon which you are relying
calls for PIE *o to become OI <a:>. Or will you say that it happens only
with *o in PIE-open syllables?

***