Re: [tied] IIr 2nd Palatalisation

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
wrote:

> Patrick:
> 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, kurd. c^erme `weis|' (: schweiz. helm)"

Patrick:

> But in this case, I am convinced that Pokorny's 4. *kel- really

contains two

> unrelated roots: *kel-, 'reddish' (parallel to 4. *ker-); and **k^el-,
> 'grayish' (parallel to 6. k^er-). The MPers form *c^arma, 'mold',

could as

> easily relate to *k^er- as to **kel- (better **k^el-).
> ***

No. PIE k^ > Iranian s (at least, Avestan _sat&m_, Modern Persian
_sad_ '100').

> 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 PIE *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:
> Of course, I should have written *sk^Rtéti as the source of cRtáti.
>
> As for the difference between <c> and <ch>, I am as nearly positive

as one

> can be in these matters that *ske:i- should be emended to

**sk(h)o:i-. Here,

> the long vowel is caused by the absorption of the aspiration from

*k(h),

> which is always associated with 'cutting'. *k^(h), on the other

hand, is

> always associated with 'speed, running'. I think we see the form

without

> s-mobile in Pokorny's *k^o:(i)-. It looks to me as if an earlier

*k(h)o[:]y-

> has become *kyo- then *k^o- through metathesis while some derivatives
> maintained *kyo-.

Richard (new):
But *sk^ seems to have had two outcomes, /ç/ and /ch/. It's also
possible that the outcome /ç/ is simply evidence that the *s was omitted.

> I know this will not be satisfactory for you but I am beginning to

suspect

> that cópati
> may be derived from a root of the form *kWéupeti or *kwéupeti.

Richard (new):
**kwéupeti would have yielded *kvópati.

Deriving _cópati_ from *kWéupeti and kopáyati from *koupéyeti strains
credulity.

Patrick:

> I think we can both agree that *kew6p- is a highly unusual root

form, and

> the reflexes are more than a little confusing.

Richard (new):
If we exclude the derivatives of **kap, don't we simply have a case of
schwebeablaut?

> Patrick:
> We do have <kópa->, which is as likely to have been an *e-grade as an
> *o-grade. Would you agree?
>
> Richard:
> 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:
>
> Pokorny's <kópa-> is not a verbal form, is it?

Richard (new):
Sorry, I was talking of _kopáyati_. However, I think *koupo- is more
likely than *keupo-, but I would welcome an expert opinion on the
patterns of derived noun formation. If e-grade and o-grade are
equally likely, then that word (_kópa_) simply provides no evidence.

> 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):
I haven't seen any evidence for *sk or *sk^ yielding Sanskrit /c/,
though I can't yet preclude it arising through Grassman's law. What
you need is a case where cognate words in Sanskrit yield /sk/ and /c/,
but not /k/. It would be better if /sk/ rather than /k/ always
occurred in the cognates in other languages, i.e. if we could
demonstrate 's immobile'.
-----

> 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.
>
>
> ***
> Patrick:
>
> Is this better?

Richard (new):

It's better, It still requires the 'new' to be taken out, which is
awkward in long exchanges like this one.

Richard.