Re: [tied] *es- or *h1es- ?

***
Patrick:

No PIE root may begin with a vowel.

In Pokorny's day, no one was quite sure what did begin roots like *es- so
that is how Pokorny wrote it, leaving the question for later solution.

Since then, a class of consonants, called laryngeals, has been established.
They fill the role of beginning roots that appear to begin with a vowel but
occur in other positions as well.

One of those is H1, which was probably phonetically <?> or <h>. It has no
effect on the following vowel.

There are also H2, which supposedly colors vowels to <a> and H3, which
supposedly colors vowels to <o>.

Beyond that, you need a good source of information like Beekes, Comparative
Indo-European Linguistics.

***

----- Original Message -----
From: "Edgard Bikelis" <bikelis@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 3:43 PM
Subject: [tied] *es- or *h1es- ?


> modelo1
> Saluete!
>
> I started to read about PIE just about two weeks ago, and I feel hard
> to
> be sure of something, as I always find a different opinion about anything
> I
> read. For instance, I was convinced that the root for the "sum, esse" in
> Latin was *h1es-, at least in the present. Ok then. But then I saw the
> Pokorny dictionary, and there it's plain *es-. The dictionary is old, it's
> possible to be wrong, I thought. Well, in this list's files I read *es-
> again. Now i'm the face of despair : ). Please, someone can explain what
> arose such discordance, and which opinion is true?
>
> For me, in all my highness of two weeks of reading, the *h1es- root
> seems a little more comfortable, for it can allow the loss of -e- on the
> plural persons on present, and still allow to have es- in Latin and Greek,
> for instance:
>
> h1és-mi
> h1és-si
> h1és-ti
> h1s-vos
> h1s-th2eh
> h1s-tes
> h1s-més
> h1s-th1é - estis - esté
> h1s-énti
>
> (singular, dual, plural)
>
> But then I saw the vedic conjugation of this:
>
> ásmi
> ási
> ásti
> svás
> sthas
> stas
> smáh
> sthá
> sánti
>
> And I realised that the a- before the -s- of the root disappeared, as
> if
> the PIE root was *es-, becoming *s- on the dual and plural of the present.
> Again, I'm not even sure if PIE has a dual conjugation : ). If anyone
> knows
> a good book about this, please tell me too...
>
> Valete,
>
> Edgard Bikelis.
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>