From: Rob
Message: 41081
Date: 2005-10-06
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote:Is Gk. _pateo:_ a denominative from _patos_, or is it from an IE form
>
> > It's an argument against any recent derivation of the nouns in
> > this group from the verbal root.
>
> Do you know of any Germanic strong verbs (let's say, for
> simplicity, in the first three classes) that are back-derived from
> an o-grade noun? The development strikes me as extremely unlikely,
> especially given the fact that the normal processes of denominative
> derivation were fully productive in pre- and Proto-Germanic. From
> *ponth2(o)- one would expect a weak verb like *fanþji/a-, which
> could be coined at any time since PIE. And that's indeed what we
> get, cf. OE fe:þan 'walk'. Something parallel to Gk. pateo: is
> another possibility, but why a strong verb, of all things?
> > I see no reason to separate the Indo-Iranian forms from theWas that aspiration regularized in Skt. _pántha:s_, then, on analogy
> > others, especially since there is no trace of the verb *pent(h2)-
> > there (or anywhere else besides Germanic). The Ablaut of the
> > root is o ~ zero, as shown by Slav. poNtI vs. OPruss. pintis,
> > Grk. póntos vs. pátos, and Skt. pántha:s vs. oblique path-
> > (Avestan pantå: ~ paþ-). I think that rules out a thematic
> > formation.
>
> I don't separate the Indo-Iranian forms from the rest. I only
> regard the o-vocalism in the cognates as due to secondary
> infixation, not to derivation from an o-grade base. A "Rasmussen
> thematic" like *O-pnth2-o- may be regarded as based on a root noun
> rather than directly on a verb -- not that it makes any difference
> on the surface, but compare cases like *tor(h1)-m-os or *por(h2)-n-
> ah2, clearly derived from abstracts in *-men-.
>
> Assuming that the meaning of *penth2o:s was 'passage, way, route',
> the expected thematic adjective would have meant 'connected with
> passage', and the substantivised *pónth2o-s could refer to any
> thing that afforded or facilitated passage from one place to
> another, such as a bridge, a beaten road, or a sea route.
>
> Of course *pn.th2i- and *pn.th2o- can be regarded as related to the
> same root noun without an infix.
>
> > An interesting form is OPersian acc.sg. paþim. When Jens first
> > pointed it out to me, I was highly surprised, but it all makes
> > sense now. Since the root is heavy (having a long vowel > *o
> > _and_ ending in -nt),
>
> According to my understanding of the term, this root is "heavy" no
> matter what the vowel is. BTW, I'm tempted to reconstruct *pe:nth2-
> as the pre-PIE shape of the noun stem, since I'd expect a lenthened
> vowel in a resultative root noun. But since it wouldn't have been
> affected by the nominative lengthening, and an Osthoff-type
> shortening would probably have repaired the syllabic overweight at
> an early stage, the length doesn't seem to matter in the further
> developments and I'm content with *penth2-.
>
> > there could
> > be no svarita lengthening in this word, so the expected paradigm
> > is (taking **-ah2- to be a suffix):
> >
> > **pú:nt-ax-z
> > **pú:nt-ax-m
> > **pu:nt-áx-a:s,
> >
> > which regularly becomes:
> >
> > **pónt&:xs
> > **pónt&xm
> > **p&nt&xós,
> >
> > and after zero grade:
> >
> > **pónto:h2s
> > **pónth2m.
> > **pn.th2ós.
>
> I'd reconstruct nom.sg. *pénto:h2s, acc.sg. *pénth2m. ~ analogical
> *pénto:m, gen.sg. *pn.th2ós. Is it much of a difference, and does
> it hinder our understanding of OPer. p(an)þim vs. Av. pan.ta,m, RV
> pántHa:m?
> Finally, as argued by Joshua Katz, an original *e in the Indo-It seems that InIr preserved the original "root noun" (see below),
> Iranian word is evidenced by PIIr. loans in Finno-Ugric (Khanty
> p&nt and Komi pad), but I know this stuff second-hand and cannot
> assess it on my own.