From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
Message: 41086
Date: 2005-10-06
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>It's denominative.
> wrote:
>> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote:
>>
>>> 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?
>
> Is Gk. _pateo:_ a denominative from _patos_, or is it from an IE form
> *pnt(x)éh-? If from the latter, and the IE form did have /x/,
> wouldn't we expect *_patao:_?
> Was that aspiration regularized in Skt. _pántha:s_, then, on analogyYes.
> with gen. sg. *pntxós > _pathás_? The answer seems to be "yes",
> given Av. _pantå:_ ~ _paþ-_, as given by Miguel above.
>> Finally, as argued by Joshua Katz, an original *e in the Indo-There is no syllablic laryngeal after a vowel (and there is no lengthening
>> 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.
>
> It seems that InIr preserved the original "root noun" (see below),
> which I would reconstruct as *péntoxs, not *pénto:xs -- if a full
> vowel was lengthened following a coda consonant and *-s, a "syllabic
> laryngeal"
> would likewise be lengthened to full vowel (or the full
> vowel was preserved in the first place) plus laryngeal before *-s.
> That is, *-CHs > *-CVHs.
>
> - Rob