Re: [tied] IE a and o.

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
wrote:

>
> Jens Elmegård Rasmussen wrote:
>
> > Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
> >
> >> The vocalism *a can be due to a fundamental *a (at least I think
> >> so), but such an *a does not alternate apophonically with *o.
> >
> >
> > I have seen and heard that statement many times, but what is it

based

> > on?
>
> Absence of evidence, which admittedly is not per se proof of

absence,

> but as far as I can see the only thing that certainly _can_

alternate

> with fundamental *a (i.e. those instances of *a which do not seem

to

> result from any kind of secondary colouring) is *a:, as in *wa(:)

stu-,

> or *Hna(:)s-. I'm not quite certain about *a : zero, but I haven't

seen

> any convincing examples thereof (except, possibly, Gmc. *sultjo:,

if

> from *sal(d)-, but this is a bit too isolated to be decisive). As

for

> cases like *ko:pah2 and (perhaps) *kono- from *kap- and *kan-, I

believe

> the *a in these verb roots comes from *e coloured by the adjacent

*k,

> cf. the long-vowel grade *ke:p-, not !*ka:p-.
>

How about PIE *h2artk-, Hittite hartagga, but Latin ursus
(< *orcsos ?) "bear"? If this is a o/h2a (u/h2a ?) ablaut, this would
fit better into Ehret's idea of the Proto-AfroAsiatic prefix than any
PIE scheme. But why would PIE borrow a word for "bear" from
AfroAsiatic?

I can't get hat/hood etc to fit into a PIE scheme either.


Torsten