Re: [tied] PIE athematic neuters

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 09:52:57 +0100, Piotr Gasiorowski
<gpiotr@...> wrote:

>On 2006-03-11 13:05, Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
>
>> I don't follow. If there's nothing peculiar about the other
>> cases in the neuters, there is nothing peculiar in the
>> nom/acc. either, or there is something peculiar about both,
>> both in neuters and non-neuters. There is no fundamental
>> difference in Ablaut between a neuter like *dórur, *dérwos
>> or an animate like *pó:ds/*pódm., *péds. The difference is,
>> as you said, one of distribution: neuters are almost always
>> static or amphidynamic, while "animates" occur in all types,
>> the most common ones being proterodynamic or hysterodynamic
>> (the *pod-/*ped-type would seem to be limited to root
>> nouns?).
>
>There is no obvious reason for the nominative lengthening in neuters (as
>opposed to non-neuters), and yet it seems to occur there.
>*k^e:r(d)/*k^r.d-ós appears to be like *dje:us/*diwos, but the extra
>mora in the former (in the nom./acc.sg., but not in the other cases)
>doesn't seem to be due to Szemerényi's lengthening; and if not, what is
>it due to?

According to my interpretation, due to underlying length in
the neuter form:

*kí:rd > *k^é:r(d)
*ki:rdás > *k^r.dés

(Actually, the oblique is more like *k^r.diyós, which leads
me to believe that we're not dealing with a root noun, and
the reconstruction could be something like:

*kí:rd-in > *k^é:rd(r) > *k^é:r(d)
*ki:rd-ín-a:s > *k^@rdéyos > *k^@r.d@... > *k^r.d(i)yós
)

>The *h1we:su-s/*h1wosu type shows the difference clearly
>(though both are static and share the "weak" (e-grade) case forms.

Is this based on Irish fó "gut, Güte" vs. fíu "würdig"?

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