Re: [tied] IIr 2nd Palatalisation (was: PIE voiceless aspirates)

On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 18:26:09 -0600, Patrick Ryan
<proto-language@...> wrote:

>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Miguel Carrasquer" <mcv@...>
>To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
>Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 1:30 AM
>Subject: Re: [tied] IIr 2nd Palatalisation (was: PIE voiceless aspirates)
>
>
>> On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 20:02:57 -0600, Patrick Ryan
>> <proto-language@...> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> >PIE *kw regularly produces OI <c>;
>>
>> No. It regularly produces OI <k>. Before front vowels and
>> /j/ this was palatalized to <c>.
>
>***
>Patrick:
>
>First, to keep this discussion within manageable proportions, let us, for
>the moment at least, look only at _initials_.
>
>The only forms I find in Pokorny with OI <k> for PIE *kW are:
>
>ka:çate:, *kWek^-, *kWok^[?];
> kula-m, *kWel-;
>karo:ti, *kWer-;
>ka-H, kWo-s;
>ki-H-, *kWei-s, *kWoi-s[?];
> kri:Na:ti,*kWrei-;
> kRmi-, *kWrmi-;
> kSap, *kWsep-;
>ka:s-, *kWa:s-.
>
>Presumably, you would explain these as instances of:
>
>zero-grade: kula-m; kri:Na:ti; kRmi-; kSap
>presumably *o-grade: ka:çate, ka-H, ki-H

<kis> obviously can't be o-grade. It's an irregular form
without palatalization (analogical after <kas>, and other
pronouns with -i-/-o- alternation)

>before *a: (*aH) - ka:s-
>
>When I see imperative kuru, I suspect that karo:ti may be the result of
>zero-grade as well: *kWréuti > *k(u)róti > *k-a-róti
>
>Is that basically how you see it?
>
>
>********************
>
>> >PIE *k produces OI <k>;
>>
>> Which was palatalized to <c> before front vowels and /j/.
>
>I have gone through the *k section in Pokorny for initials, and can find
>only
>
>candati, *(s)kendeti (metathesized from *(s)ked-n-)
>camara, *kem-

You missed a few: cé:s,t,ati, cyávate:, ca:s.a, có:pati,
perhaps more.

>
>Of course. I am used to writing <S> for <s> (from the time that esh could
>not easily be inserted into email)

There are two eshes in Sanskrit: <s'> and <s.>.

>so used <S> for Pokorny's <s'> and
>Whitney's <ç>. If this sound is, in origin, truly a palatal sibilant, we
>should expect PIE *se/*sy to be reflected in Old Indian as <S> but, no luck,
>there. In view of that and its use in Old Indian to reflect PIE *k^, I
>suspect that it was originally /ç/ rather than /s/, and am adopting the
>practice of writing it <ç>.

It's old fashioned.


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...