From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 42068
Date: 2005-11-12
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Wordingham" <richard.wordingham@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 8:38 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] IIr 2nd Palatalisation (was: PIE voiceless aspirates)
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Miguel Carrasquer" <mcv@...>
> > On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 01:57:21 -0600, Patrick Ryan
> > <proto-language@...> wrote:
<snip>
> First, there is nothing but imaginative thinking to connect ca:Sa
to
> *kel-(so-). It is of questionable value to prove anything. In
addition,
> every one of the other nine Old Indian derivations of this *kel-
have <k>
> (<kalká>). Nine *o- or zero-grades?
Look to Iranian for the e-grades:
"npers. c^arma `Schimmel', kurd. c^erme `weis|' (: schweiz. helm)"
***
Patrick:
But how do you reconcile that with Avestan <kasu-> from (supposedly) *k^ak-?
***
> PIE roots are *CVC. Thus the root for cRtáti is *ker-; this is
acknowledged
> (almost) by Pokorny when he refers to 3. *(s)ker- under the *kert-
listing.
> In view of an attested kRNátti under this root, I suggest a
prototype for
> cRtáti would probably be better reconstructed as *skRtéti.
Except that unsoftened PIE *sk gives Sanskrit /sk/ (or /k/) e.g. the
derivatives of PE *ska(m)bH (e.g. skabhna:ti, skabhno:ti 'support')
and softened *sk gives Sanskrit /ch/ e.g. _chyati_ 'cut' from
Pokorny's *ske:i.
***
Patrick:
Yes, of course. Here we see <ch>; but what about <códati> from *(s)keud-?
***
> I do not think cópati can be very probative in view of kúpyati and
kopáyati
> from this root. Perhaps we are dealing with *skéupeti.
The combination of cópati, kúpyati and kopáyati looks like a lovely
example of the e-grade, zero grade and o-grade of **keup. It's
partly spoilt by the apparent parallel existence of **kap.
How does the Sanskrit _kap_ root arise from PIE *kew&p? Wouldn't
*kwep have yielded **kvap?
***
Patrick:
First, I doubt seriously <*kapi>; it is, after all, "unbelegt".
But in view of Egyptian k(3)p, 'burn incense' (probably better *kjp), I
think Greek kapnós, 'smoke', and OI <kapilá> are more likely to be derived
from a PIE form like *kaHp- (**ka[:]p-).
We do have <kópa->, which is as likely to have been an *e-grade as an
*o-grade. Would you agree? If we say it is <k> because of *o-grade, we are
chasing our tails around the tree.
As we see, OI <c> can, apparently, also be a response to PIE *ske- (I would
say *sk^V). I am beginning to wonder if <ch> does not tell us that the PIE
form should be *sk^(h)-?
***