Re: [tied] PIE Word Formation (2)

----- Original Message -----

From: Piotr Gasiorowski

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 4:39 PM

Subject: Re: [tied] PIE Word Formation (2)

On 2006-03-30 20:31, Patrick Ryan wrote:

>     There is no proof and not even any persuasive indication that PIE
>     -*ró _ever_ was "dissimilated" to -*ó, under any circumstances.

One can actually see this process at work in Gk. argós 'shining, bright,
swift' < *h2r.g^-(r)ó-, cf. Ved. r.jrá- 'swift'. The compositional form
is always *h2r.g^-i-.

***

Patrick:

 

Perhaps with stereoscopic glasses "one can actually see this process" but, provided as I am with only normal eyesight, I cannot see any connection between argós and r.jrá- other than their both being formed on the same root. The key to unmasking this charade posing as an argument is to ask: under what conditions should we expect PIE -ró to become PIE -*ó?  I am giving 2 to 1 odds this is a question Piotr will ignore. Any takers?

 

***

>     PIE -*u/*ú (from -*w) is an affix that is unrelated to -*ó
>     (plurality) or -*ró (high degree); and has a totally different
>     significance: it provides the idea of definite but limited
>     repetition and successfully completed activity so that *kr.t-ú would
>     primarily mean 'empowered, provided with power'.

The distribution of *-ú- and *-ró- is more or less complementary. They
are only exceptionally formed from the same root, and there's certainly
a strong tendency to use *-ú- after roots containing *r (or, more
generally, a liquid). When they do occur as variants, as in Gk. elapHrós
'light (in weight and movement), nimble' ~ elakHús 'small, little'
(where's "the idea of definite but limited repetition and successfully
completed activity"?), the difference in meaning is minimal. <elapHrós>
means practically the same as RV ragHú-. All these words reflect
*h1ln.gWH-ú/ró-; both variants share the same comparative,
*h1léngWH-(i)jos-.

 ***

Patrick:

 

In my opinion, this is an incorrect use of the term "complementary distribution" since the criteria for when we should expect either 'variant' has not and cannot be clearly oppositionally stated. The preference for -*ú or -*ró is based on the semantic content of the root not insubstantial phonological guesswork.

 

 As for elakhús, I see no problem interpreting it as 'lightened', as, for example, by drying.

 

It is pure sophistry to claim that *HléngWH-(i)jos- is the comparative of "both variants"!

 

*HléngWH-(i)jos- is the comparative of *HléngWH-os-.

 

***