--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
wrote:
Patrick:
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?
Richard:
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-?
Richard (new):
We're talking about root #823 on p521. The other satem cognate given
is given as Lithuanian _nukas^e`ti_ 'ganz entkräftet werden'. I think
*k^ak is a typo for *kak^.
Patrick:
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.
Richard:
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-?
Richard (new):
<códati> happily derives from *keud-. Even in cases without
softening, the s mobile is frequently missing.
Patrick:
I do not think cópati can be very probative in view of kúpyati and
kopáyati
from this root. Perhaps we are dealing with *skéupeti.
Richard:
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.
(Discussion of **kap moved to after discussion of **keup.)
Patrick:
We do have <kópa->, which is as likely to have been an *e-grade as an
*o-grade. Would you agree?
Richard (new):
No. The simple thematic verb from **keup is PIE **kéupeti, which
happily yields _cópati_. In the thematic present, e-grade is much,
much commoner than o-grade. Conversely, the *moneye-ti type
derivative (one of the Rasmussen infix forms) is also a common verbal
stem, which in this case would yield *koupeyeti, whence _kopáyati_.
Patrick:
If we say it is <k> because of *o-grade, we are
chasing our tails around the tree.
Richard: (new)
No, though we might have to take a probabilistic approach. Is there a
*meneye-ti derivative stem?
Patrick:
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)-?
Richard: (new)
Sticking to the notation of the 3 PIE dorsals being *k^, *k and *kW to
avoid utter confusion, Pokorny's PIE *sk^ might reflect two sets of
originals - in Sanskrit Pokorny (IEW) implies reflexes as /ç/ (it may
be old fashioned, but its nice, reliable Latin-1) and as /ch/.
Richard:
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-).
Richard: (new)
I don't see any sign of a long vowel /a:/ in Pokorny's example, and
*kHp- would have something like Sanskrit *khip, *kip or possibly a
softened form thereof.
Patrick, can you not standardise your 'quoting' in postings? I do not
enjoy manually editing '>' out (or in) to give a proper indication of
the flow of conversation.
Richard.